yaaif_agent_spec_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states what the tool returns (including segments, slots, bindings, and workflow_design) but does not mention the read-only nature, any side effects, permission requirements, or pagination. Since it is a 'Load' operation, the read-only implication is reasonable but not explicit. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks safety and side-effect disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates included contents. It is efficient and has no fluff. Not quite a 5 because it could be even more compact, but 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?

For a simple get-by-id/slug operation with a single parameter, the description is fairly complete: it names the resource, selection criteria, and key content included. It lacks explicit return format details or error conditions, but given the simplicity and no output schema, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. A minor gap is not documenting any special cases like not-found behavior.

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 schema only defines spec_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical semantics by clarifying that this parameter accepts either an id or a slug, which is not implied by the schema alone. It compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't give format examples or constraints.

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 states a specific verb (Load), a specific resource (one Scenario/Agent Spec), and the selection criteria (by id or slug). It also lists the contents (segments, slots, bindings, workflow_design), clearly distinguishing it from list operations like yaaif_agent_spec_list and from yaaif_agent_get which targets a different entity.

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 implies a use case—retrieve a single, detailed Agent Spec—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of when to prefer list or other retrieval tools. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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