Index Syntax-Directed Operations by the grammar production they're defined on. by: 'production' (default) groups SDOs under each production; by: 'sdo' groups productions under each SDO title. filter narrows to keys containing a substring (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| edition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses grouping behaviors but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only/read-write), rate limits, or side effects. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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?
Three sentences with no redundant information. Main purpose is front-loaded, and technical details follow efficiently.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the 'spec' (choosing ES version), 'edition', or 'limit' parameters. An agent may not know how to properly use these fields, reducing completeness.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning for 'by' and 'filter' parameters (explaining their values and effects). However, 'spec', 'limit', and 'edition' are not described, leaving gaps for those 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 tool indexes Syntax-Directed Operations by grammar production, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like spec.grammar and spec.search by focusing on SDO indexing with grouping options.
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 explains the two grouping modes (by: 'production' vs 'sdo') and the filter parameter, which guides usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, 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.