Validate ReSpec Document (full render, no write)

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the use of Puppeteer for rendering and that it does not write output. However, it omits side effects, permissions needed, or potential failures. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 very short and easy to read, but it sacrifices essential detail. While concise, it does not fully earn its place by covering key aspects beyond purpose.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output format, error handling, prerequisites, or any usage context beyond basic validation. More detail is needed for adequate completeness.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (profile, status, overrides, source, output). No defaults or formats are mentioned. The description fails entirely to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 validates a ReSpec document, runs rendering via Puppeteer, and returns diagnostics. The title adds 'full render, no write', distinguishing it from write tools. However, it could be more specific about the types of validation performed.

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 mentions 'Does not write output', hinting at a contrast with respec_build, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like respec_preflight or respec_scaffold. No criteria for preferred usage are given.

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