Get a parsed spec

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by listing the specific components returned (frontmatter, requirements, sections) and reiterates 'Read-only', consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with key information. Minor formatting issue with apostrophe ('spec`s') does not hinder understanding. Could be slightly more polished.

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 simple getter tool with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the returned data. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but overall it is adequate.

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 input schema fully covers the single parameter 'spec' with a description ('spec id (e.g. SPEC-auth)'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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 states that the tool retrieves a parsed spec, including frontmatter, requirements (with id, line, named verify command), and sections. It also explicitly marks it as read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swarm_check_file or swarm_get_checks.

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 usage for retrieving spec details but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Given nine sibling tools, some direction would be beneficial.

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