get_api_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It correctly implies a safe read operation, but lacks details on output format, error behavior, or any authentication/authorization requirements. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'retrieve'.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly states the function.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but omits context such as what qualifies as 'full' specification or how to handle missing IDs. Given the availability of several similar API-related sibling tools, additional distinguishing context would improve completeness. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough information.

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 schema fully describes spec_id at 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, such as format constraints or expected value patterns. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource 'full API specification' and the method 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_api_specs (listing) and get_api_endpoints (endpoints only).

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 provides a clear context (retrieve a spec by ID) but does not explicitly explain when to use it over alternatives like get_api_endpoint_detail or get_api_schema. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are given.

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