Get REQ schema

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses output format (raw text vs parsed/markdown), provenance (`specmgr schema` generation), freshness guarantees (pre-commit hook/CI keeps it current), and a `$comment` version marker for detecting shape changes. It stops short of stating that the call is a side-effect-free read and says nothing about failure modes when the schema file is missing.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes what is returned and what it is not; the second carries usage guidance; the third carries provenance and the version-marker detail. Every clause earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or title content.

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 no parameters and an output schema already present, the description only needs purpose, routing, and behavioral context — all three are supplied, including the staleness/version-marker mechanism an agent would otherwise not know about.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no space restating an empty input 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 REQ domain's generated JSON Schema (2020-12 dialect) as raw text") and explicitly contrasts itself with the markdown view and with `get_req_template`. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling template/example/schema tools without opening any 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?

Names concrete triggers ("constraint discovery, structural questions, or an unresolved validation error") and an explicit exclusion ("never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch"), plus the alternative to reach for instead. This is the when/when-not/alternative triad at full strength.

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