get_tool_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only 'Get' operation but does not disclose details such as error handling, case sensitivity, or whether the operation has side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal function.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and target. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could include slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks usage guidance. It does not mention how to get a valid tool name or when to use this tool instead of list_all_tools. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description alone is only moderately complete.

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 has one required parameter 'name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the schema is for 'a specific tool,' which clarifies that 'name' refers to a tool name, providing a small semantic layer. However, it does not specify the expected format or how to obtain valid names, such as via list_all_tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' to indicate retrieval, and specifies the resource as 'full description and inputSchema for a specific tool.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_all_tools (which lists all tools) and get_tool_count (which counts tools), as it targets a single tool's schema.

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 phrase 'for a specific tool' implies the tool is used when you need schema details for one tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of list_all_tools as a way to discover valid tool names or any contextual guidance.

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