Get XGR standard schema

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behaviors. It notes that xdala-authoring returns empty schema, but lacks details like output format, required permissions, or effects on system state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral nuance. It is mostly sufficient for correct invocation, though it could explicitly state that the output is a JSON 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions three enum values (xrc-137, xrc-729, xdala-authoring) and explains the xdala-authoring case, but does not clarify 'xgr-multibundle' or provide full details for all options.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves JSON schemas for XRC-137 and XRC-729 drafts, with specific mention of xdala-authoring returning empty. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_xgr_standard_example or get_xgr_standard_reference.

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 indicates when to use it (for XRC-137/729 drafts) and notes a special case (xdala-authoring returns empty), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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