project_get_design_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Return' aligns with those. The description adds useful context by specifying that the spec includes explicit and inferred fields, and 'resolved' implies it reflects the post-inference state, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 verb 'Return' and conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only getter with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly states what is returned (resolved design spec with explicit and inferred fields). The existence of an output schema means return value details need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety traits.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per the rubric, zero params warrant a baseline of 4. The description is not required to explain any parameter semantics.

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 ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('resolved project design spec'), and clarifies that it includes both explicit and inferred fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get_design_intent (raw intent) and project_infer_design_spec (inference step).

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 this tool returns the final combined design spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'use this after inference' or 'instead of project_get_design_intent'). Usage context is inferred from the wording 'resolved' and sibling names, but no direct guidance is provided.

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