get_spec_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies what the return payload contains (prompt + source config) and the invocation context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for unknown report names, or any auth requirements. 'Return' implies a safe read, but it is not 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource; the second adds valuable contextual information about the caller. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it returns and when to use it. Minor gaps such as not-found behavior or explicit read-only assurance are acceptable for a simple getter, but would make it more complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including an example. The description adds only a slight restatement ('named report') and does not provide additional semantic depth such as naming conventions, validation rules, or behavior for missing names.

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' with a clear resource: 'gather spec (prompt + source config) for a report definition.' The second sentence adds a concrete invocation context (autonomous gatherer callback), which makes its distinct role relative to sibling tools obvious.

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 clearly states when this tool is used: the autonomous gatherer calls it on callback to learn what to collect for the named report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the callback context is strong enough to guide an agent without ambiguity.

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