Return the section tree (table of contents) for a parsed (spec, edition). depth caps how deep the tree descends (1 = top-level only); under limits the tree to descendants of one clause id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| under | No | ||
| edition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic behavior (return tree) and the effect of two parameters. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then explains the parameters. Every sentence adds value, achieving high efficiency.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no required fields, the description is incomplete. It omits details on the 'edition' parameter, return format, error conditions, and default behavior of parameters. A more comprehensive description is needed for this level of complexity.
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?
The description adds meaning to 'depth' and 'under' beyond the schema, but it does not explain 'edition' or the enum values of 'spec' (e.g., what 262 and 402 refer to). With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some but not enough context for all parameters.
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 the action 'Return the section tree' and the resource 'for a parsed (spec, edition)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like clause.get or clause.list. The optional parameters 'depth' and 'under' are explained, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage for obtaining a table of contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide examples. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is given, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: clause operations vs. proposal queries vs. spec utilities vs. test262 search. Even the two search tools have clear differences (single vs. cross-spec).
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern using lowercase and snake_case for the action (e.g., `clause.get`, `spec.global_search`, `test262.search`). No mixing of conventions.
17 tools is appropriate for a comprehensive TC39 spec browser. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy, covering clauses, proposals, grammar, symbols, tables, and test262.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of exploring TC39 specifications: retrieving clauses, searching, cross-referencing, diffing editions, inspecting grammar and symbols, and querying proposals and test262.