describe_spec

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions that it describes the active spec and returns 'ok' or 'error', but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or discuss potential errors beyond status. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Concise description with purpose front-loaded. Four sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and return status without extraneous detail.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's role within the sibling set, especially its relationship to run_xml_verification. Lacks error details but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4. The description explains what the tool does without schema reliance, adding value by clarifying the scope of description (specifications, workspaces, datasets).

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 tool's purpose: describing the loaded QA spec file, including available specifications, workspace definitions, and per-specification summary. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_conditions (individual conditions) and describe_condition (specific condition).

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?

Explicitly advises calling this before run_xml_verification to learn specification names, workspace IDs, and dataset names. It also clarifies which spec is described (active from load_spec or default path). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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