Would JSON `input_schema` for builtin tools be in scope?

Hi — thanks for maintaining this repo; it's been an invaluable reference.

The repo carefully tracks each builtin tool's description (the prose text Anthropic sends to the model), but the JSON input_schema that accompanies each tool definition in the same request isn't covered. Wanted to ask before opening a PR: would adding schemas be in scope?

Why it could be useful

• Schemas describe what a valid tool call looks like — required fields, enums, value ranges, regex patterns. Today anyone building a Claude Code-compatible runtime or analysis tool either re-derives them or captures them themselves.
• They change across versions like the descriptions do, so they'd slot into the existing changelog cadence.
• Structured complement to the existing prose, not a replacement.

Why it might not be

• The stated scope is "system prompts." Strictly the schemas are part of the API request body, not the prompt string.
• A new content category means more for the extraction script to track.

Proposal if yes

A small PoC PR — one tool (Bash, since it has the most coverage here) — placed at e.g. tool-schemas/bash.json with a short README explaining source and conventions. If you like the pattern, happy to fill in the rest. If not, no harm done — I'll keep them out-of-tree.

For source: I have these captured verbatim from live Anthropic API requests via a local reverse proxy, so it's exactly what Claude Code v2.1.x sends — same kind of fidelity as your JS-extraction approach.

Happy to defer to your judgment either way. Thanks!