Get example spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'complete, working example' (i.e., the output is usable as-is), and says nothing about size, whether the spec is renderable, or its relationship to the live state. Modest value-add over the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the required enumerations. The long id list is justified given 0% schema coverage, though grouping labels ('Skins', 'Family') are slightly cryptic without explanation.

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?

One required parameter fully enumerated, no output schema needed since the description says it returns a spec, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent nature. Remaining uncertainty (spec format, size, downstream use) is minor for a simple read tool.

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 carries the burden and does so by enumerating all 14 accepted ids and grouping them ('Skins:' vs 'Family:'), which matches the single enum parameter exactly. It does not explain id semantics beyond the naming, but the enumeration compensates well for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a complete, working example spec') and clarifies its intent with 'to learn from or fork'. It does not name any sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can separate it from texel_read_docs or texel_pull.

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?

'to learn from or fork' implies the use case (reference material, starting point for authoring), which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like texel_pull or texel_read_docs, nor what to do with the result (e.g., feed it to texel_save or texel_patch).

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