get_hull_spec

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the returned spec is fully resolved ('every parameter') and that omitting a preset yields defaults, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown preset or whether the result is read-only vs. persisted. Adequate but thin.

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 what is returned and followed by the fallback behavior. 'Use as a starting point' is the only sentence that is more filler than substance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and with one optional param the surface is small. Still, the description omits how to discover valid preset names and what a resolved spec contains at a high level, leaving an agent to infer the surrounding workflow.

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, and it does: it explains that the optional `preset` argument selects a named preset while its absence falls back to 'the defaults,' which is the key semantic the schema cannot convey. It stops short of describing valid preset identifiers.

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+resource: it returns the full resolved hull spec for a preset or the defaults. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_hull_presets (which enumerates presets) by resolving one into every parameter, though it never names that sibling 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?

'Use as a starting point' gestures at a workflow role but never says when to prefer this over list_hull_presets, hull_design_guide, or preview_hull, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining a valid preset name first. No when-not guidance at all.

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