get_specs

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 transparently indicates a read operation and describes the nature of the data returned (min/typ/max, unit, conditions). It does not mention error behavior, unknown part numbers, or fallback logic, though the parameter schema does mention family fallback.

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 that front-load the core purpose and immediately cover the key optional behavior. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling read tools like lookup or get, but this is a minor gap.

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%, with both parameters already well-documented. The description adds only a restatement of the optional canonicals filtering ('Optionally restrict to specific canonical parameter names'), providing no additional semantic value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('canonical extracted specs') for known IC part numbers, clearly identifying the tool's function. It goes beyond the mere name by listing what the specs contain (min/typ/max, unit, conditions). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'lookup' or 'get', but the domain-specific resource provides enough distinction for most cases.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when you need specs for known IC part numbers, and optionally filter by canonical parameter names. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as compare_parts or find_parts, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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