Resolve spec notation like [[Prototype]] (internal slot), %Object.prototype% (well-known intrinsic), or ~number~ (sigil enum): return clauses that mention or define it, ranked by occurrence with a bump for definition-y sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| edition | No | ||
| notation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the ranking algorithm (occurrence with bump for definition sections) and provides examples of inputs and outputs. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what to expect beyond a simple resolution.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads examples and clearly explains the purpose and behavior. Every part adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the core functionality and return behavior but lacks documentation for three of four parameters. No output schema is provided, so details on the return format would be helpful, but the description adequately covers the main use case.
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. It only adds meaning for the 'notation' parameter through examples, leaving 'spec', 'limit', and 'edition' undocumented. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 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 resolves specific spec notations (internal slots, well-known intrinsics, sigil enums) and describes the output behavior (return clauses ranked by occurrence with bump for definition sections). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like spec.search and spec.well_known_intrinsics.
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 use when resolving spec notations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spec.search or spec.well_known_intrinsics. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.