get_time_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' details, implying a read operation, but does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any side effects. For a simple get operation, this is minimal but not misleading; it lacks depth but does not contradict anything.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and input. It contains zero fluff and efficiently conveys the tool's function and the required key. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate. It tells what it does and the input. It does not describe the returned fields or error cases, but given the simplicity and the sibling context, this is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. The only gap is the vague 'details' without specifics.

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 parameter TIMESPECKEY is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantics, format, or examples beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 verb 'Returns', the resource 'details of a single time spec', and the input key TIMESPECKEY. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_time_specs (plural) and get_time_spec_group(s) by indicating it operates on a single time spec. The wrapper reference adds credibility without confusion.

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 usage is implied: call when you have a TIMESPECKEY to retrieve its details. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_time_specs for listing. It provides no exclusions or routing guidance, falling into the 'implied usage' category.

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