OpenSpec MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'records' a revision, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, this lack of behavioral detail 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the usage trigger. Every word earns its place—there's no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' and 'when' but misses behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and output expectations. For a write operation with significant input structure, more context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'changeId' format or 'metadata' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Record a design revision when fixing bugs or adjusting design that deviates from the original proposal/design.' It specifies the verb ('record') and resource ('design revision'), and the context ('when fixing bugs or adjusting design'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openspec_update_revision' or 'openspec_list_revisions', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 usage context: 'Call this when your changes affect the documented design.' This gives a specific trigger for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'openspec_update_revision' for updates vs. initial recording), which prevents a score of 5.

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