memoire

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 error behavior ('Returns isError with message if the name does not match any saved spec'), prerequisites ('Spec must exist in the registry'), and return value details (including different shapes for ComponentSpec, PageSpec, and DataVizSpec). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but it covers key operational aspects well.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, return details, error behavior, and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (fetching spec details with error handling) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains prerequisites, return values (including different spec types), error behavior, and when to use versus siblings. This compensates well for the missing structured data, making it complete enough for effective tool invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the need to use get_specs first and noting case-sensitivity, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Fetch the full body') and resource ('a single spec by name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_specs (which lists names and types) and create_spec (which creates specs). It explicitly contrasts with get_specs to avoid confusion.

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 versus alternatives: 'Use get_specs to enumerate available spec names' as a prerequisite, and 'Use get_spec when you need to read, modify, or verify the details of a known spec before generating code or calling analyze_design with spec-compliance mode.' It also mentions when not to use it (if you only need names and types, use get_specs).

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