Get QA schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the output is raw text (not parsed JSON or markdown), that content is generated by `specmgr schema` and kept current by a pre-commit hook/CI, and that a `$comment` version marker allows shape-change detection. It stops short of stating read-only safety or whether the response is a snapshot versus live generation, leaving a small gap.

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 the core action and what it is not, then the when-to-use clause, then provenance. It is a single dense paragraph with heavy em-dash nesting, which slightly reduces scannability, but every sentence carries information.

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 return values need no explanation, and the description still clarifies the raw-text form and version marker. Provenance and anti-pattern guidance are both present; nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the tool takes no scoping arguments by describing the QA domain as the fixed subject.

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 QA domain's generated JSON Schema, 2020-12 dialect), and immediately distinguishes the artifact from the markdown view authored via get_qa_template. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its many 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?

Gives concrete triggers (constraint discovery, structural questions, unresolved validation error), an explicit exclusion (never a mandatory pre-authoring fetch), and names the alternative tool for the authoring path. This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done correctly.

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