get_hull_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result is 'fully resolved' and suitable as a starting spec to copy and change. It does repeat 'Read-only,' but does not contradict the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the use case and a pointer to the guide. No sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, usage modes, a copy-use case, and a pointer to hull_design_guide for field explanations.

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 100%, and the single preset parameter already documents that the name comes from list_hull_presets and should be omitted for defaults. The description restates the preset/default distinction but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Return the fully resolved hull spec, every parameter with its value.' It also clarifies the two modes, a preset or the defaults, so an agent can distinguish it from list_hull_presets or hull_design_guide.

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 clear usage guidance: use it to see what a preset sets or as a starting spec to copy and change. It also names hull_design_guide(topic="spec") as the alternative for understanding fields. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is strong.

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