get_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the handle is session-local and content-addressed, implying scoped validity and deterministic resolution. It does not detail error behavior, but the output schema and simple nature reduce the need.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool is simple, has one required parameter, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete enough for invocation, though it could strengthen context by clarifying how this differs from sibling tools like get_spec_template.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by defining spec_id as a 'session-local content-addressed FigureSpec handle.' This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it stops short of explaining format or how to obtain the handle.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('session-local content-addressed FigureSpec handle'), making the tool's function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_schema and get_spec_template by the 'handle' focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 the tool should be used when the agent has a session-local content-addressed FigureSpec handle to resolve, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_schema or get_spec_template. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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