spawn_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the optional file-saving side effect ('Optionally save under .spawn/') but does not mention whether files are overwritten, if network access is required, or what the tool returns when not saving. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and optional side effect with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (fetching docs) and optional saving. However, it omits what the tool returns when save is false and any prerequisites (like needing a project) or side effects of file writes. The high schema coverage compensates partially, but the missing return behavior is a gap.

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% (both save and projectDir have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; 'Optionally save' simply echoes the schema's save parameter description. It does not clarify projectDir's role beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' to name the exact resources: engine guide, tome API reference, and skills index. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_play_* or spawn_status which handle gameplay/status. The optional save behavior is also clearly stated.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to fetch engine documentation, API references, and skills index. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the uniqueness of the documentation purpose among siblings, the intended use is evident. Slightly below 5 because no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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