get_spec_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read-only profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add value by disclosing the breadth of retrievable content (schemas, gates, capabilities, rules, patterns) and that some kinds are parameterized (gate:<0-3>, style_guide:<id>, reference:<appid>), but says nothing about response shape or size.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact list of kinds. The list is dense and slightly run-on but every entry earns its place by defining a valid parameter value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter enumeration is thorough. The definition is complete for a lookup tool, with only minor gaps around usage relative to overlapping siblings.

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?

With 0% schema coverage on the single 'kind' parameter, the description fully compensates by enumerating every valid value and explaining what each returns, including templated forms. This is exactly the semantic detail the bare string schema lacks.

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 identifies the tool as reference-data retrieval and frames it as the tool equivalent of the server's resources for tool-only clients, which is a clear and specific purpose. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like scan_project or generate, though it uses no explicit verb.

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?

It implies when to use it ('for clients that only use tools') and reveals the coverage of each kind, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance relative to siblings such as steamworks_inspect or study_market, which also surface reference-style data.

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