Get TXT 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 does add real context: provenance (`specmgr schema`), a freshness guarantee (kept current by a pre-commit hook/CI step), and a `$comment` layout-version marker for detecting shape changes. It does not state that the call is side-effect free or discuss size/caching of a full schema document, and the 'raw text' vs 'parsed-JSON view' phrasing is mildly self-tensioned. Solid but not complete for an annotation-free tool.

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 disambiguation, then when-to-use, then provenance — a sensible ordering where every clause carries information. It is a single dense, em-dash-heavy paragraph, so it reads as a run-on and would scan better as two or three sentences, but little is wasted.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already declaring the return shape, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the artifact is, its dialect, its freshness, and when to reach for it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or avoid misusing it is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as a deterministic fetch of a single known artifact.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return the TXT domain's generated JSON Schema (2020-12 dialect) as raw text') and explicitly bounds it against siblings by naming `get_txt_template` and contrasting the markdown view with the machine-readable one. An agent can distinguish it from `get_txt`, `get_txt_example`, and `get_txt_template` without opening a 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 three concrete triggering conditions ('constraint discovery, structural questions, or an unresolved validation error') and an explicit exclusion ('never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch'), plus routes the authoring case to a named alternative. This is the when/when-not/alternative triad done properly.

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