Get DEC schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context: the schema is generated by `specmgr schema`, kept current by a pre-commit hook/CI step, and includes a `$comment` version marker for detecting shape changes. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure behavior if the schema is unavailable, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with the return type and dialect, then gives usage guidance and generation details. It is somewhat long but every sentence carries useful information -- return format, alternative, usage conditions, and freshness marker. It could be tightened slightly, but it does not waste space on restating schema fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers purpose, alternatives, usage conditions, and the freshness/version-marker behavior. For a zero-parameter schema retrieval tool, nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details. The empty input schema is consistent with the description.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: it returns the DEC domain's generated JSON Schema in 2020-12 dialect as raw text. It also distinguishes this from the markdown/template view by naming `get_dec_template` as the alternative for authoring. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces versus its siblings.

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?

It explicitly names when to fetch it: constraint discovery, structural questions, or unresolved validation errors. It also gives a negative instruction -- never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch -- and points to `get_dec_template` for the authoring starting point. This is clear when/when-not guidance with an explicit alternative.

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