Get VIPMP resource schema

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that filtering is case-insensitive substring match and omitting returns all, which is useful operational detail but not extensive. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: three sentences covering purpose, source, and parameter details. Front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the input and behavior. It mentions the source but could briefly note that the output contains per-field details, though that is implicit. Still, sufficient for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides type and default for resource_name, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining it's an optional case-insensitive substring filter, with examples and behavior when omitted. Adds substantial meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns structured field schemas for VIPMP resources, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on schema retrieval, while other tools handle endpoints, code examples, or docs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the tool's purpose and parameter but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for its intended use, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.