get_schema_by_name

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behaviors like return value structure, error handling, or permission requirements. Only states it 'gets details', which is minimal.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose. Concise but perhaps too terse; no wasted words, but could benefit from additional context in a second sentence.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return value. It does not. Among many sibling 'get_by_name' tools, it doesn't differentiate. Lacks completeness for a specialized retrieval tool.

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 description must explain parameters. It mentions 'fully qualified name' for 'fqn' but does not explain the 'fields' parameter, leaving ambiguity about its purpose (e.g., filtering returned properties).

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'details of a specific schema', and method 'by fully qualified name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_schema' which likely returns multiple schemas.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_schema' or 'list_schemas'. Usage is implied by the name, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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