describe_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the configuration requirement but does not mention error conditions, side effects (likely none), or what happens if the spec is not loaded. Acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 efficient: front-loaded with purpose, uses concise sentences and bullet-point style to list learnings. No wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, dependency, and what the agent can learn from it. It feels complete for a zero-parameter introspection tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline score of 4 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 clearly states it describes the loaded QA spec file, listing specifications, workspace definitions, and per-specification summary. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as a precursor to run_xml_verification.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before run_xml_verification to learn...' and lists what can be learned. It also states the dependency: 'Requires PROSUITE_SPEC_PATH to be configured.'

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