create_development_spec

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses key behavioral constraint (no overwriting), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or return values. It adds some transparency but is incomplete for a creation tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and constraint. No redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema, and description fails to explain return value or success/error behavior. For a creation tool with 3 required parameters, the description lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect as a result.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Description clearly states the action (create) and resource (development specification), with explicit constraint '不允许覆盖已存在的规范' (no overwriting existing specs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_development_spec or delete_development_spec.

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 when a new spec should be created without overwriting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit for existing specs). No comparison with sibling tools.

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