get_feature_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's dual-mode behavior (specific retrieval vs. search), return types (full spec vs. list), and when certain parameters apply (include_criteria/ include_tasks only with spec_id). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet-point style explanation of the two modes with practical guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the core functionality and usage patterns. It explains the dual-mode operation and parameter applicability clearly. The main gap is the lack of information about return format/structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two lookup modes (spec_id vs. search) and their implications, which clarifies the mutual exclusivity and purpose of these parameters beyond what the schema descriptions provide. However, it doesn't address domain/project_id usage scenarios.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('feature specification from Rampify'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique purpose: understanding what to build, which files to touch, and acceptance criteria. It explicitly differentiates from tools like create_feature_spec and update_feature_spec by being a retrieval operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when starting work on a feature') and distinguishes between two lookup modes (spec_id vs. search). It also advises to 'follow up with spec_id for full details' when using search mode, offering clear usage alternatives within the tool itself.

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