get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by noting that the response includes schema_data, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as not-found behavior or required permissions.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and mentions the notable response field without redundancy.

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 simple read-only getter with one well-documented UUID parameter and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit context about when to prefer this over list_schemas and does not describe error cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%: the only parameter, schema_id, is already described as 'UUID do schema'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific operation ('Retorna') and resource ('schema'), and explicitly mentions schema_data in the response. It is unambiguous but does not actively distinguish itself from siblings like list_schemas or validate_schema_data.

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 about when to use this tool versus list_schemas, create_schema, or validate_schema_data. The intended usage is only implied by the verb and the required schema_id parameter.

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