Get Spec

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns documentation visibility, slug, and up to 10 versions newest first, plus the project-context precondition. No contradiction exists, and the added detail goes beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the tool's purpose and key output fields come first, the version-id usage tip is second, and the project-context requirement closes it. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the spec returns, the ordering and limit of versions, downstream usage, and a required precondition. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents specId as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification', so the description does not need to redefine it. The description adds useful context about returned version ids, but that is output behavior rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Get detailed information about an API specification' and enumerates specific outputs: documentation visibility (internal/authenticated/public), slug, and versions. This clearly distinguishes get_spec from sibling list_specs, get_version, and validate_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 gives clear context by stating 'Requires project context' and tells the agent to use the returned version ids as versionId for create_endpoint and other version-scoped tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the intended usage is well implied.

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