get_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it doesn't confirm this is a read-only lookup, doesn't state behavior when the model name doesn't exist, and doesn't note whether the spec is versioned or reflects unpublished changes. It does disclose the return serialization, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing; the sentence is too small to earn more than a minimal score.

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?

The presence of an output schema excuses not explaining return values, but the description still leaves the core questions unanswered: what a 'spec' contains, how it differs from describe_model, and what 'name' means. For a tool an agent must disambiguate among ten siblings, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'of a model' weakly implies name identifies a model, but it doesn't specify whether it's a model ID, display name, or path, nor whether it must exist.

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 essentially restates the name: get_spec returns 'the current spec of a model.' The term 'spec' is never defined, and siblings include describe_model and analyze_model, so an agent cannot tell which of these to reach for. The only added information is the serialization format ('as JSON text').

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (describe_model) despite it being a sibling. The agent is left to infer the distinction between fetching a spec and describing a model.

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