Get SYSRS schema

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses provenance (generated by `specmgr schema`, refreshed by a pre-commit hook/CI step) and a `$comment` version marker for detecting shape changes. Minor ambiguity in the phrasing 'as raw text -- the machine-readable, parsed-JSON view', which leaves the exact serialized form slightly unclear, costs it a point.

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 rules, then provenance — a sensible order, with no filler sentences. It is dense with parentheticals and em-dash clauses in a single long paragraph, which slightly reduces scannability.

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 not be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the content ($comment layout marker, dialect version) and the freshness guarantee. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it 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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter semantics and instead invests in output 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?

States a specific verb and resource — return the SYSRS domain's generated JSON Schema (2020-12 dialect) — and immediately disambiguates it from the markdown view and from get_sysrs_template. An agent can tell exactly which of the schema/template/example siblings to call.

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 positive triggers (constraint discovery, structural questions, an unresolved validation error) and an explicit negative one ('never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch'), routing pre-authoring intent to get_sysrs_template. Both when and when-not are stated with the alternative named.

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