spec_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "With the default limits filled in" is a useful disclosure about what the returned spec contains, but the description says nothing about read safety, missing-weapon behavior, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core meaning arrives immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least convey return shape or error behavior. It only gestures at the return via "default limits filled in" and omits what happens when the weapon does not exist.

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% for the single required 'weapon' parameter. The description references a weapon but gives no identifier format, naming convention, or example, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 phrase "One weapon's spec" communicates a single-resource read and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling spec_list, which is a genuine signal. However, the verb is only implied by the tool name, and terms like "spec" and "default limits" are domain jargon with no explanation, so the purpose is vague beyond the read/list distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus spec_list, spec_validate, or spec_write, all of which are siblings in the same family. The singular "One" hints at single-item retrieval, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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