spec_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns schema and notes, and the verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or potential side effects. For a simple schema retrieval tool, this is a minor gap, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding usage guidance in the second. There is no fluff; every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential context: what it returns and when to call it. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need to be spelled out, and the usage guidance makes the tool self-contained.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. It correctly references the domain ('workout spec') which adds context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies due to zero parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource: 'workout spec's JSON schema plus the notes needed to author one.' This clearly explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_spec or render_zwo, which serve different purposes.

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 second sentence provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before writing a spec by hand if the format is not already known.' This tells the agent the appropriate context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool beyond that condition.

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