Explain spec

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 states a read-only action ('Return the full field-level spec'), but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether data is fetched from a source, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Acceptable but minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the essential purpose. It is very concise, though it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from usage hint.

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 and two parameters (one undocumented), the description does not explain what the returned 'field-level spec' contains or how the 'specDir' parameter affects the result. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly interpret the response.

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?

Only 50% of parameters are described in the schema (entity has a description; specDir does not). The description adds no parameter details beyond mentioning 'one entity', so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'specDir' parameter.

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 it returns the full field-level spec for one entity, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('spec'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_specs' (which lists specs) and 'check_drift' (which checks for changes).

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 before writing code ('so you know exactly what to implement before writing code'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_specs' or 'check_drift', nor does it mention any conditions or restrictions.

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