Get the storyboard JSON Schema

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the schema is generated from the engine's own zod schema and represents the exact validation contract, making its authority and reliability clear without needing to repeat the annotation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core subject (JSON Schema for storyboard.json) and then adds the key context about provenance and validation authority. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only schema retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what this returns, why it is authoritative, and how it relates to the engine's validation process.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing and the empty input schema is fully consistent with the tool's purpose.

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 identifies a specific resource (storyboard.json schema) and states its provenance and function: it is the exact JSON Schema the engine validates against. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_storyboard or get_authoring_guide, which serve different purposes.

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 implies strong usage context: because this is the exact contract used for validation, agents should consult it when they need authoritative schema rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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