Get spec section

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

The description aligns with the `readOnlyHint` annotation by indicating a fetch operation. It adds valuable context about the nature of core validation/execution clauses being SpecTec-generated with terse prose but pointing to formal rules via `formal_refs` and URL. No contradiction with annotations.

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 adequately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful examples and return information without unnecessary fluff. A minor improvement could be slightly shorter sentences, but overall it is 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns (clause title, cleaned prose, cross-references, formal_refs, rendered URL). It covers the main behavioral expectations and output structure, making it complete for the agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of valid `id` values (e.g., `syntax-numtype`, `valid-unreachable`) and explaining that these match stable fragment IDs in the rendered spec.

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' and resource 'spec clause by id or anchor', clearly stating its purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `section_list` and `spec_version` by focusing on fetching a single clause by identifier, not listing or searching.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve a specific clause by its id/anchor across different specs (core, js-api, web-api). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like `section_list` by focusing on individual clause retrieval, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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