Get Spec Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description contributes useful context that the payload is a prompt plus source config consumed by an automated gatherer on callback, but says nothing about staleness, permissions, or failure behavior for a missing report name.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler; every clause (what is returned, who calls it and when) 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description explains the tool's role in the callback workflow. It is nearly complete for a one-param read tool, with only the lack of sibling differentiation as a residual gap.

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 single 'name' parameter is documented with an example, so the schema carries the burden. The description only reinforces that the spec is keyed by the named report, adding no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the gather spec') and unpacks the return value into its two components (prompt + source config), which is more than the name conveys. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from lookalike getters such as get_sweep_tool or get_output_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a real usage context: it is what the autonomous gatherer calls on callback for a named report. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with the sibling getters, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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