haops_get_protocol_spawn_lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses the read-only nature, the required feature flag, and the 404 behavior. This is transparent and covers key behavioral traits.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (definition, usage, conditions, error handling). No redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and error cases. It could briefly mention the return format, but the description implies it returns spawn-line text.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'role' parameter (omit for all, specify for one) and explains the 'raw' parameter, but the schema already describes these. No additional semantics beyond what is in the schema.

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 tool returns per-role spawn-line text and defines spawn lines. It specifies the API endpoint and distinguishes the resource (spawn lines) from sibling tools that handle other entities.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get spawn lines), how to use parameters (omit or specify role), and mentions the feature flag requirement and 404 handling. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but no other spawn-line tool exists among siblings.

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