get-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 discloses that the return is the full spec (unfiltered, complete) and enumerates its sections, which implies a safe read-only retrieval, but it says nothing about size or caching behavior. For a zero-parameter, zero-risk retrieval tool this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the return value and then lists contents. The nested parenthesis with DataSourceDescriptor and the rows/series/options kinds is dense but every item earns its place as an inventory of the spec.

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, the description effectively substitutes for one by enumerating the spec's sections, which is the key information an agent needs. For a parameterless reference-retrieval tool this is nearly complete; only the response format/size is unspecified.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing only the returned content.

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?

Names a specific resource (the MDMA specification) and enumerates exactly what it contains: component types, JSON Schemas, binding syntax, DataSourceDescriptor, and authoring rules. It is distinguishable from get-doc/list-docs by content, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get-doc or list-docs. The agent must infer that this is the reference-spec lookup.

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