Get Tool Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about what the call returns (schema, examples, metadata), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential size of responses, error behavior, or whether it requires special 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 entire description is one tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key output components without wasting words on trivia.

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 introspective tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the absence of any guidance on how this tool relates to search_tools or other discovery mechanisms, but an agent can still call it correctly based on the provided information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavier burden, and it does partially compensate: 'for one tool' clarifies the name parameter, while 'full schema, examples, and metadata' maps directly to include_schema and include_examples. It does not give detailed semantics for each flag or mention defaults, but the meaning is reasonably inferable.

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 action ('Load'), a precise resource ('full schema, examples, and metadata for one tool'), and a clear scope ('from this server'). It clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from the many domain-action siblings by emphasizing that it returns schema/examples/metadata rather than performing a real-world action.

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 clearly implies the tool is for fetching tool details, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives such as search_tools or other introspection helpers. There is no guidance about when not to use it or which sibling might be a better choice for tool discovery.

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