get-schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the schema doesn't exist, rate limits, or what format the returned data takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the core function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar schema-related tools in the sibling list. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single required parameter 'schemaName', the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'by name' which hints at the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid schema name, format expectations, or whether it's case-sensitive. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('fetch') and resource ('schema by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tableconfig-schema-details' or 'update-schema' that also involve schemas, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'tableconfig-schema-details' and 'update-schema' that also handle schemas, there's no indication of when this specific fetch operation is appropriate versus other schema-related operations.

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