Get Who Spec

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

With no annotations whatsoever, the description bears full weight for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential error cases, rate limits, or whether the response could be large. It adds basic context (return contents) but leaves more on the table.

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 concise single sentence that front-loads the action and the object, with no filler words. It packs relevant content (specification, commands, dimensions) exactly as needed, without bloating.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the return format is covered, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, the description does not address potential usage boundaries among the sibling tools, and the absence of annotations leaves a small discoverability gap for agents.

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%, and the schema itself explains the 'who' parameter with practical examples. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond restating the scope, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and names a concrete resource ('full technical specification, WHAT commands, and DIMENSIONS') scoped to an OpenWebNet WHO family. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_who_catalog or lookup_frame_syntax, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 it should be used when a complete technical specification is needed, but it gives no explicit when-not or alternative selection. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so an agent may need to introspect other definitions to choose the right tool.

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