get_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a solid job by disclosing the specific components of the result: spec, nested English explanation of dependencies, evidence attributes, coverage, and previous versions. It does not discuss failure modes or read-only guarantees, but 'get' plus the enumerated return content makes the behavior clear for a retrieval operation.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's full scope via a colon-separated list. Every listed item earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the major result categories and implies the domain. It misses only a small amount of context, such as explicitly linking the `name` parameter to the definition identifier, so it is not a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain that the required `name` parameter is the identifier of the definition to retrieve or what format/valid values it accepts. The tool name and 'one definition' provide weak inference, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (one definition) and enumerates the content areas returned: spec, nested English explanation, evidence attributes, coverage, and previous versions. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns' and does not directly distinguish itself from the coverage or list_definitions siblings beyond the 'one definition' scope.

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?

The description implies a clear use case: when an agent needs comprehensive details about a single definition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'everything about one definition' framing distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as list_definitions.

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