openspec_validate_spec

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Validate a specification,' omitting details like side effects, return format, or whether validation is a check or an operation. This is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is too brief and lacks important context. Conciseness is good, but it borders on under-specification.

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 output schema, the description should at least hint at the result of validation (e.g., success/failure, error messages). It does not. The tool has two parameters and a specific purpose, but the description is too minimal to be 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (specId, strict) adequately described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the role of 'strict' in more 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 'Validate a specification' is a verb+noun but is too generic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like openspec_validate_all or openspec_validate_change, which also perform validation. The tool seems to validate a single spec given by specId, but this is not explicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openspec_validate_all or openspec_validate_change. No context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases is provided.

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