get-api-spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavior that calling without arguments lists all types, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the return format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the no-arg behavior, and the third provides usage context and alternatives. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and alternatives without needing to explain return values, which are handled by the output schema.

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 already documents the single optional parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful examples ('business-rule', 'script-include') and clarifies that omitting the parameter lists all types, enhancing understanding of the parameter's role.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('Fluent API specification for a ServiceNow metadata type'), with concrete examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to get-snippet for code examples and get-instruct for best practices.

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 tells the user when to use the tool ('before writing code') and provides explicit alternatives for related needs, naming get-snippet and get-instruct. It also explains how to list all metadata types by omitting the argument.

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