engineering_create_spec

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

The description mentions routing through the dispatcher, which is a technical mechanism, not a behavioral effect. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no further detail about what happens when the action runs (e.g., side effects, changes to system state). Thus it fails to disclose behavior beyond what annotations capture.

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 short and not bloated, but it is a single sentence that lacks clear structure (e.g., separation of purpose, usage, or effects). It is concise but at the expense of content, making it a bare-bones statement rather than a well-organized explanation.

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?

The tool is a domain agent action that creates something called a 'spec', but the description provides no context about what a spec is, what inputs are expected, what the output schema contains, or what side effects occur. With no explanation of the action's purpose or behavior, the description is severely incomplete for an agent trying to use it correctly.

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 defines two parameters (message, inputs) with defaults but no descriptions, and the tool description does not elaborate on them. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no meaning is added about expected format, content, or relationship to the action. Schema coverage is effectively 0% because no descriptions exist.

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 'Run' and the resource 'engineering domain agent action create_spec', but it never explains what 'create_spec' actually does (e.g., what a spec is, what it creates). This is a generic invocation wrapper, and while it distinguishes the action by name, the purpose remains vague without domain context.

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 any of the many sibling tools. The description only says to run the action, without any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The agent receives no direction on decision-making.

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