mifactory-spec-api

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Convert' implies transformation but does not state whether the input is modified, whether a new object is created, error handling, or reversibility. The description lacks behavioral detail that an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant words. It is concise and efficiently communicates the core action, though it sacrifices detail.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, expected input format, return value, or relationship to sibling tools. It covers only the headline action.

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 one parameter 'documentText' (string) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'document' but does not elaborate on the expected format, content, or purpose of 'documentText,' so it adds no meaningful semantics 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?

Description states 'Convert document to agent-readable spec,' which clearly identifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'document' to 'spec.' It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'spec_validate,' though the action is obviously different.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'spec_validate' or any other alternative. The description gives no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or when conversion is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Validate a spec' without stating side effects, return values, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This provides essentially no behavioral 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 short sentence, but extreme brevity here results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be actionable, so the structure earns a low score.

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 presence of a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. A validation tool should explain what constitutes a valid spec, what checks are performed, and what the agent should expect as a result, none of which is mentioned.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'spec' parameter, and the description adds no information about what the spec object should contain or how it is validated. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'a spec', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'spec_convert' that converts specs. However, 'spec' is vague and does not specify what kind of spec or what validation entails, making the purpose only partially clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'spec_convert'. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent receives no decision-making support.

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