delimit_spec_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evaluation dimensions (completeness, security, etc.), output format (score 0-100, letter grade A-F, per-dimension breakdowns, recommendations). It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate. It could clarify whether the path is local or remote.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and result ('Score an OpenAPI spec on quality dimensions. Instant health grade.'), then elaborates on evaluation criteria and output. No wasted words.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (presumably well-defined), the description covers input format, usage scenarios, and detailed output characteristics. No obvious gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'spec' (described as 'Path to an OpenAPI spec file (YAML or JSON).'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool scores an OpenAPI spec on quality dimensions, including specific aspects like completeness, security, consistency, documentation, and best practices. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other domains (e.g., agent, audit, governance, deployment).

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 advises using this for 'quick spec quality checks during onboarding or code review' and specifies it works on OpenAPI 3.x or Swagger 2.0. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given no other spec health tools exist.

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