describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful 'no type → list of types' branching behavior, but says nothing about read-only status, auth/permission needs, return structure, or failure modes for a tool whose whole purpose is introspection.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary content description, so nothing is padded. However, the brevity tips into under-specification rather than crispness — the fragments are terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 1-param introspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned spec shape/flags/budgets actually look like, since nothing else documents the return value. It hints at return content but leaves the agent without enough to call or interpret confidently.

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 add real meaning for the single optional 'type' param by defining the no-type fallback (returns the list of types), which the bare string schema does not convey. It still omits what valid type values look like and the format of the per-type output.

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 gestures at content ('spec shape, flags, and budgets') but never states a clear verb — it reads as a noun phrase, leaving the agent to infer that the tool 'describes' things. The resource ('one figure type') is identifiable and distinct from siblings like render/validate/audit, but the domain jargon ('spec shape') keeps the purpose somewhat opaque.

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 only usage signal is the conditional 'No type: the list of types,' which explains one calling mode but not when to choose describe over render, validate, audit, export, or infer. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are offered.

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