get_spec

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes success return (full spec object as JSON with per-type details) and error behavior (specific error message for missing spec). Lacks explicit statement of read-only nature, but given the verb 'fetch' and context, it's implied. Still, a bit more detail on safety or side effects would elevate to 5.

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?

Description is well-structured into logical paragraphs but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, but some redundancy (e.g., 'Prerequisites' and 'Use this tool vs get_specs' overlap slightly). Still, clear and front-loaded.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates effectively by detailing return shape per spec type, prerequisites, error handling, and comparison to sibling. Provides a complete picture for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema already provides detailed description of the single 'name' parameter (case-sensitive, not filename, use get_specs to list). Description adds no extra parameter information beyond schema, so baseline of 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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch the full body of a single spec by name' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_specs by noting that get_specs returns names and types only.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool vs get_specs' and provides specific scenarios: when to read, modify, or verify details before generating code or calling analyze_design. Also lists prerequisite (spec must exist, use get_specs to enumerate).

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