get_schema

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about empty/partial name matching, full-name contracts, ProtoJSON conventions, and explicitly states that no network requests are performed.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by name semantics, an example, ProtoJSON context, and the no-network boundary. The sentences are dense but every one adds useful information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations already describe safety properties, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the relevant payload conventions. No critical information is missing for this schema-introspection tool.

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?

Schema coverage for the single name parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that empty/partial names list matching definitions, full names show the complete field contract, and it provides a concrete fully qualified example. Exact matching details such as case sensitivity remain unstated.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect supported protobuf fields, numbers, types, enum values, and oneof groups. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_endpoint_catalog.

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 how empty, partial, and full names behave, which implies usage. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any exclusions.

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