Get PRB schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the output is raw text rather than parsed objects, the provenance (generated by `specmgr schema`, refreshed by pre-commit hook/CI), and the `$comment` version marker for detecting layout changes. That is meaningful context beyond a bare "get".

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then usage routing, then provenance. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the CI/pre-commit sentence is slightly more than an agent needs to select the tool.

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?

Output schema is present, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers format, provenance, versioning, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond implying no filtering/targeting is needed.

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 ("Return") and resource ("PRB domain's generated JSON Schema, 2020-12 dialect, as raw text") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the markdown view and from get_prb_template. An agent can pick this over get_prb_template without opening either schema.

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?

Gives positive triggers ("constraint discovery, structural questions, or an unresolved validation error") and a negative one ("never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch"), plus routes to the sibling get_prb_template for the authoring starting point. Both when and when-not are covered.

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