describe_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only'. It adds 'bounded' to hint at limit/offset behavior, which is useful context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose what the schema content looks like or what the response contains.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'bounded read-only archive retrieval' is awkward and only loosely connected to the act of describing a schema. It is not verbose, but it could be clearer without adding length.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what the returned schema looks like, how limit/offset affect it, or what 'schema' means in this context. An agent lacks key information to correctly interpret the tool's output or know what to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented limit and offset parameters. 'Bounded' is a weak hint that these parameters control the result size, but it does not explain that limit/offset are for pagination or how they affect the returned schema. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.

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: 'Describe schema'. It adds 'bounded read-only archive retrieval' which clarifies the operation is read-only and paginated. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_record or query, and 'schema' is not explicitly tied to the archive context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query or get_record. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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