get_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly declares the operation is read-only, explains that the return is the full spec rather than a summary, and gives the design rationale about per-edit response cost. It does not discuss error conditions or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds a tightly relevant paragraph explaining the contrast with mutating tools. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers the main behavioral context: what it retrieves, when to call it, and how it differs from siblings. The missing parameter documentation is a minor gap given the self-explanatory project_dir name, but the tool is otherwise fully understandable.

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 0%, and the description does not mention project_dir at all. The parameter name and title ('Project Dir') give some minimal hint, but the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema documentation, such as what the path should point to or any required format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read-only fetch of the full current spec." It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutating tools by noting they return compact summaries, making it clear this tool provides the complete graph state.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: "Call this when you actually need the whole picture." It also explains that mutating tools (add_node, add_edge, remove_node, remove_edge, set_state_schema) return only counts, which tells the agent when those alternatives are more appropriate.

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