Get UC schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses provenance (`specmgr schema` generation, pre-commit/CI freshness) and a `$comment` layout version marker for detecting shape changes. What it omits is failure behavior — e.g., what happens if no UC document exists yet — which is a minor but real gap 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 the resource and return format, then the sibling disambiguation and usage rules. It is dense and slightly run-on across em-dashes, but essentially every clause (dialect, raw text vs markdown, template exclusion, provenance, version marker) conveys actionable 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 are covered elsewhere, and the description supplies what the schema cannot: dialect, text-vs-parsed distinction, sibling routing, and generation freshness. Only the error/prerequisite case is unaddressed, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 UC domain's generated JSON Schema ... as raw text") and explicitly contrasts with both alternatives: the markdown view and get_uc_template. An agent can distinguish this from get_uc_example, get_uc, and get_uc_template 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?

Gives named use cases (constraint discovery, structural questions, unresolved validation error) and an explicit exclusion ("never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch"). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at full strength.

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