Get generated spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Gets' is consistent. The description adds the context that the spec is generated for the collection, but it does not disclose any behavior when no generated spec exists or what format the spec is returned in.

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 one sentence, front-loaded, and directly states the core action. It contains no filler, fluff, or redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only retrieval tool, and the description plus schema and annotations are largely sufficient. Since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more complete by explaining what form the API specification is returned in.

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 schema fully documents both 'collectionUid' and 'elementType'. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it also does not need to since the input schema already carries that burden.

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 and resource: 'Gets the API specification generated for the given collection.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and ties it to a collection, which distinguishes it from broader getter tools like getAllSpecs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling read tools such as getSpec or getSpecCollections.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getSpec, getSpecCollections, or generateSpecFromCollection. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a spec must first be generated for the collection.

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