Get Specs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and 'Retrieve' does establish a read-only operation plus the internal structure of a spec. It does not disclose whether keyword search returns full specs or lightweight summaries, whether results are paginated or capped, or how the three parameters combine when supplied together.

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 sentences with no filler: the resource and its contents come first, then the three access modes. The parenthetical is informative rather than redundant, and nothing needs trimming.

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 3-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what a spec is and how to fetch one, but leaves the return shape (list vs. full document), result limits, and default no-parameter behavior unspecified. That is a meaningful gap given nothing else describes the response.

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 all three parameters (search, status enum, draft_id) are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates them. The one piece of added meaning is that draft_id yields 'full content' while search is names-only, but the schema's own 'with full content' wording already conveys that.

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 ('Retrieve') on a specific resource ('SystemDox specifications') and even characterizes the payload (proposal, RFC 2119 requirements, Given/When/Then scenarios), which separates it from siblings like get_docs or get_checks by content type. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for overlapping lookups, so it falls just under the top mark.

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?

Three invocation modes are enumerated (by ID, by status, by keyword), which implicitly tells the agent when each parameter applies. However there is no statement of when NOT to use this tool, no mention of what happens with no parameters at all, and no routing to or away from get_docs/get_planning_context.

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