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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral nuance beyond that: the returned example values are illustrative and must not be treated as the task specification. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether the spec is static or regenerated per request.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the retrieval action and then lists the payload contents, followed by a short caveat. Dense but not padded; the only cost is that the enumeration is a comma run-on rather than structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does enumerate the artifact categories returned. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it doesn't explain the shape of each artifact or how they relate.

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% and the single 'types' filter is fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the filtering parameter at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific retrieve action and enumerates what is returned (component catalog, SceneSpec/document contract, layout examples, inspection methods, cloud build process), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like build_scene or inspect_scene, but 'get_build_spec' plus the enumerated payload makes the distinction inferable.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the eight sibling tools. The only usage-relevant hint is the caveat that sample values are not the actual problem, which is a warning about content rather than guidance on invocation.

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