get_endpoint_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (parameters, response, error codes), which is the core behavior. However, it doesn't mention any potential error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. As a read-only retrieval, this is acceptable but not exceptionally transparent.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage context. No filler words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly explains what the response contains ('parameters, response, error codes'). It covers the essential information for a retrieval tool. The 'section' parameter is described in the schema, so no need to repeat. Slightly more could be said about expected size or format, but it is adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents for 'section' and 'endpoint' – it simply restates the purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('full reference page'), and the specific content ('parameters, response, error codes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_docs by being the tool that retrieves a specific endpoint's spec.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'to ground your generated code against the exact request/response schema before emitting it.' This tells the agent when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes search_docs, which is likely for broader searching, so the context is clear.

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