spawn_latest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It candidly explains that head pulls write sync scripts and update the base-version rail, while non-head pulls are read-only unless applyLocal:true resets the local rail. It also discloses conflict handling (both-changed → <file>.theirs) and parameter mutual exclusivity, which are critical 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 exceptionally dense yet concise, packing modes, defaults, conflict behavior, read-only conditions, and parameter constraints into three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information with no filler or 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and parameter interactions thoroughly. However, it does not describe what the tool returns or outputs, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema. Minor error behavior is also not addressed, so the score is one below excellent.

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?

Though the schema covers all parameters at 100%, the description adds meaningful interaction semantics: it explains the default applyLocal behavior per mode, mutual exclusivity of version and updateSlug, and the rail/reset implication of applyLocal. This goes well beyond what the schema's individual descriptions provide.

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 opens with 'Pull a saved spec' which is a specific verb+resource, and then enumerates the distinct modes (head, live, version, updateSlug) that the tool supports. It also notes 'use after version_conflict', which frames its role among sibling tools and distinguishes it from related commands like spawn_push or spawn_init.

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 clearly states when to use head pulls ('use after version_conflict') and contrasts head vs non-head behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use the tool. The guidance is contextually clear without naming siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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