Enumerate the well-known intrinsics in a spec with their probable defining clauses. Driven from the canonical §6.1.7.4 WKI table when present (ECMA-262), else a %X% prose scan (e.g. ECMA-402). filter narrows by bare-name substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the full burden. It discloses the enumeration behavior and the probabilistic nature for ECMA-402, but does not mention read-only safety, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and mechanism. No redundant information is present, though the parameter mention for filter could be integrated more smoothly.
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 does not specify the return format or structure, nor does it provide expected behavior for the 'limit' and 'edition' parameters. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to fully understand what the tool returns.
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%, yet only the 'filter' parameter is explained in the description. The 'spec', 'limit', and 'edition' parameters receive no explanation, leaving the agent to guess their meaning. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 enumerates well-known intrinsics with probable defining clauses, using specific methods. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like spec.about or spec.search, which have different purposes.
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 mentions the underlying mechanism (canonical table vs. prose scan) for different specs, implying when each applies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.