get_spec_reference

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

With no annotations, the description itself must signal behavior. 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only lookup, and 'Read this before...' frames it as a non-mutating prerequisite step without side effects. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but a static reference tool has no such concerns.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage directive in a natural second sentence. Every word contributes; no wasted detail.

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 reference tool with an output schema, the description says what it returns, what it concerns (create_process spec format), and when to use it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description explains what the returned reference will cover rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a parameterless call.

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?

Description identifies a specific action ('Show the specification format'), the exact resource (the format create_process expects), and the content scope (node types, fields, modeling rules). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like create_process, update_process, and read_process.

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?

Tells the agent precisely when to invoke it: 'Read this before writing a spec for the first time.' It does not list exclusions or alternative reference tools, but none of the siblings fill this exact role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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