get_specification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose what 'active or selected' means, how selection is determined, whether the operation can fail (e.g., no active document), or what happens with the max_objects limit. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the core action ('Read the active or selected specification description'). It doesn't waste words, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what 'active or selected' means, how the parameters interact, or what the return structure looks like. Sibling tools like get_specification_descriptions suggest a related but different operation, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'objects and columns' which maps to include_objects and possibly description_index, but it doesn't explain document_id, layout_name, max_objects, or description_index semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('specification description with its objects and columns'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_specification_descriptions (which likely only lists descriptions) and create_specification. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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: call this when you need the active or selected specification's full content (objects and columns). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_specification_descriptions for just the list of descriptions. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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