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 states the tool returns a score and recommendations, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It explicitly lists output elements (0-100 score, A-F grade, breakdowns, recommendations) but could be more explicit about being non-destructive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, dimensions evaluated, output format, usage context, and compatibility. No extraneous text.

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 simple input (one path parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output details, usage scenarios, and compatibility. It could mention behavior for invalid specs, but overall it's fairly 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% and the tool description does not add additional meaning to the 'spec' parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Path to an OpenAPI spec file (YAML or JSON).'). Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no extra value is added.

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 that the tool scores an OpenAPI spec on quality dimensions like completeness, security, consistency, documentation, and best practices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specifically for quick spec health checks, not linting or validation of other types.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for quick spec quality checks during onboarding or code review' and specifies compatibility with OpenAPI 3.x and Swagger 2.0. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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