specir_fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It only says 'Fetch' (a read-like verb) and mentions output aspects like graph edges, but does not disclose behavior such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The minimal detail goes little beyond the action itself.

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, focused sentence: 'Fetch an entity by canonical UID, optionally with graph edges.' Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose and key optional behavior. It is neither verbose nor under-specified in structure.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and leaves one parameter (include_xrefs) unexplained. It provides adequate context for the primary use case but has notable gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'uid' as 'canonical UID', which is useful, but it does not explain 'include_xrefs'. The phrase 'graph edges' might loosely relate to xrefs, but the connection is not explicit, leaving the boolean parameter's semantics unclear.

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 'Fetch an entity by canonical UID, optionally with graph edges' clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (entity), and the key distinction (by canonical UID, optional graph edges). It differentiates from siblings like specir_search (query-based) and specir_resolve (likely URL/id resolution) by emphasizing canonical UID fetch.

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 when you have a canonical UID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. There is no direct comparison such as 'use specir_search instead when you lack a UID'. This is implied context rather than explicit guidance.

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