Inspect native schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds 'Local only' and 'current', implying the schema is fetched from local state rather than the live API, which is mild added context but largely overlaps the openWorldHint=false 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and ending with the local-only constraint, with no wasted text. It is efficient, though minimal enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 read-only inspection tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the safety and scope picture is reasonably covered by annotations plus the brief description. However it never explains what the returned path/query/body schema is for or how it relates to calling the selected operation, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'operation' parameter, and the description only says 'a selected operation' without explaining how enum values map to endpoints or what the returned schema applies to. The self-describing enum names carry the load, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (path/query/body schema for a selected operation), which is concrete and distinguishable from write/execution siblings like preview_operation or run_workflow. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby get_layer_schema sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only guidance is the terse 'Local only' note; there is no statement of when to call this versus get_layer_schema or preview_operation, nor any prerequisite or context. Usage is implied by the name but not described.

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