changedetection_full_spec

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the document is 'live merged' and returns 'YAML text', though it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the purpose, then supplies the endpoint and return format. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 simple no-parameter read tool, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned (YAML text), the exact endpoint, and that the document is live and merged. Combined with the annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument endpoint call.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the live merged OpenAPI document for this instance.' It also gives the exact endpoint GET /api/v1/full-spec, making it clearly distinct from every sibling, which all operate on watches, tags, notifications, history, or system info.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: an agent should call this when it needs the instance's OpenAPI spec. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named because this appears to be the only spec-retrieval tool in the sibling set.

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