delimit_spec_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses being read-only, calls a specific backend, and works on OpenAPI 3.x or Swagger 2.0. It does not mention potential limitations like file size or timeout, but given the simplicity of the operation, these are minor omissions. Overall, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main action, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, side effects, and compatibility. Every sentence is meaningful and contributes to the agent's understanding. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter specification, side effects, and compatibility. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

There is only one parameter 'spec' with a schema description that already explains it as a path to an OpenAPI spec file. The description does not add new information beyond confirming it's a file path in YAML or JSON. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 with a grade (0-100, A-F). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings: delimit_lint compares two specs, delimit_diff gives raw diff, while this tool scores one spec on its own merits. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (quick spec quality checks during onboarding or review for completeness, security, etc.) and when-not-to-use (as a breaking-change gate or raw diff, with specific alternatives delimit_lint and delimit_diff). This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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