get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond the obvious 'get' operation: the tool is legacy/backward-compatibility and the alternative resource has better performance. However, it does not disclose the return shape, error behavior, or any auth/rate-limit considerations, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a focused compatibility note. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, and the structure makes the recommendation easy to scan.

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 tool with 4 parameters, zero param documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain what the tool returns, what registry/context mean, or how this compares to get_schema_by_id. The performance note and legacy framing help, but an agent lacks enough detail to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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, but it only weakly does so. The phrase 'specific version' clarifies the version parameter, and the resource URI 'schema://{name}/{context}/{subject}' hints that context and subject are identifier components. However, the meaning of registry, the format/behavior of version (despite its 'latest' default), and the relationship between registry and context are left unexplained.

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: 'Get a specific version of a schema.' This is clear about the core operation and the 'specific version' wording hints at the distinction from get_schema_versions. However, it does not differentiate from other schema-lookup siblings like get_schema_by_id, which fetches schemas by ID rather than by subject/version.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Consider using the schema://{name}/{context}/{subject} resource instead for better performance,' and frames the tool as maintained for backward compatibility. This gives clear when-to-prefer-another-direction guidance. It does not, however, address the sibling tools that also retrieve schemas (get_schema_by_id, get_schema_versions), so routing is only partially covered.

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