Spec Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses $ref resolution, source line numbers, http/https-only restriction, optional headers, 15-minute in-memory caching, and stale-fallback on network errors or HTTP 5XX. It omits any statement about auth requirements beyond headers and does not describe the return shape (no output schema).

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first clause and packs operational constraints into a single follow-up sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-chained second sentence is slightly run-on but not padded.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the awkward spec_path union and caching semantics well, but leaves the semantics of 'section' and 'name' — two of the three required parameters — completely unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain spec_path's object form (url/headers) and implies resolve_refs via 'optional $ref resolution', but the required parameters 'section' and 'name' are never explained in the description or schema, leaving the two central selectors undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific item') and clarifies the two input forms (local path string or URL source object). It implies distinction from spec_list/spec_info by scoping to a single item, but never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on how to invoke it for remote specs and constrains source types to http/https, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs spec_list/spec_info, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a local path is preferable to a URL.

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