openspec_critique_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions identifying potential issues but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, generates output that can be retrieved later, or modifies state. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 is concise and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 does not explain return values or error conditions. It also omits prerequisites like the existence of the change. However, for a simple review tool with few parameters, it is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps in behavioral and output context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool's description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reviews proposal or design documents and identifies potential issues, listing specific categories (completeness, feasibility, security, boundary conditions, clarity). This distinguishes it from siblings like openspec_get_critique_result (retrieves results) and openspec_add_review (adds a review).

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 reviewing proposal or design documents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like openspec_get_critique_result or openspec_add_review. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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