Inspect native schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that it is 'Local metadata only' and returns the complete input/path/query schema, reinforcing the read-only nature and specifying the return content, though it does not explain output structure.

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 with no wasted words. The scoping information is front-loaded, though the opening noun phrase is grammatically awkward.

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 22 enum values and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level notion of what is returned and no usage context. It partially covers the return content but leaves gaps in how an agent should interpret and use the returned schema.

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 'operation' parameter. The description only implies selection via 'selected', but does not explain that the enum values are operation names or how to choose among them, so it fails to compensate for the missing 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 identifies the resource (schema for a selected API operation) and the scope (input, path, and query), but it is phrased as a noun fragment without an explicit verb and does not clearly differentiate from sibling operation tools. An agent can infer the purpose from the name and title, but the description alone is vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus executing a sibling operation or using preview_operation. The only hint is 'Local metadata only', which implies read-only inspection, but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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