Spec

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the Spec is an opaque whole document, section-by-section editing is not possible, and Puts require expected_revision from a prior read to prevent concurrent clobbering. This is substantial behavioral context, not a restatement of 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The YAML frontmatter note, the Map contrast, and the concurrency protection are all useful and non-redundant.

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 all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuances: whole-document semantics, no section editing, and revision-based concurrency. Since there is no output schema, a note on the exact return shape for a get (document plus revision) would make it fully complete, but the current definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the document is opaque, conventionally YAML frontmatter, and that expected_revision comes from a prior read to enable concurrency safety. This deepens meaning beyond the schema without needing to repeat parameter details.

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?

Clear and specific: “Get or put a Spec as a whole opaque document” names the resource, the action, and the granularity. The line “an Effort may hold both a Map and a Spec” helps distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_map.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whole-document Spec reads/writes, with “Nothing edits a Spec section by section” ruling out section-level edits. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like edit_map, but the Map/Spec contrast gives enough routing context.

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