get_api_spec

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the returned content (an OpenAPI spec) but doesn't explicitly declare this as a safe, read-only operation or mention the impact of the format parameter. Given the 'Get' verb and introspection purpose, the lack of side-effect warnings is reasonable, but the description remains minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaning: what it gets, what it contains, and why to use it.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description must be comprehensive. It is not complete because it omits any explanation of the format parameter, leaving the agent uncertain about how 'full' vs 'summary' affects the returned spec.

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 defines a 'format' parameter with enum values 'full' and 'summary', but the description does not mention or explain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and none of the parameter semantics are conveyed.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Watson Orchestrate OpenAPI spec and enumerates its scope (tools, agents, connections, flows, runs). This concise verb-object construction distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific entity types.

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 phrase 'Use to understand what operations the Watson Orchestrate instance supports' provides clear context for when to call this tool. It implies using this instead of scanning individual list/get tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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