spine_get_official_spec_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'returns' indicating a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side-effect safety, required permissions, or rate limits. This is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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 conveys the key purpose and content. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured by listing items, but it is efficient and clear.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description tells what the tool returns but does not detail the format or structure of the return value. For a tool that returns spec information, more detail about what the summary includes would be helpful. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of parameters. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 clearly states the tool returns a summary of the official Spine JSON specification review, writable timeline rules, and 4.1.24 field adaptation instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spine_get_document_summary, which returns a document summary, by specifying the content related to spec review and rules.

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 usage for obtaining spec information, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context suggests it is for understanding specs, but no clear when/when-not instructions are given.

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