turingmind_get_spec_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' suggesting a read operation, but omits details such as permission requirements, what happens if the node_id is invalid, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core action and output fields, with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists only a few returned fields (stage, confidence, failure classification) but not the complete state. The context of 33 sibling tools, many of which also retrieve node-related information, demands more explicit differentiation and comprehensive description to guide tool selection, which is lacking.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'SpecNode' but does not explain the 'node_id' or 'repo' parameters, nor their formats or defaults. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full state of a SpecNode', listing specific fields (stage, confidence, failure classification). This provides a clear purpose and distinguishes it from siblings that might retrieve only partial data or different aspects, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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 phrase 'Use to query where a node is in the Manufacturing Line pipeline' implies a usage context (checking pipeline progress), but it does not specify when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternative tools like get_execution_state or get_audit_trail. The guidance is present but minimal.

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