规格编译

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions output type (questions/draft/formal) based on completeness, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or other behaviors beyond generation. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded. Could benefit from slightly more structure, but no waste.

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?

Description lacks details on decision logic for output type (e.g., what completeness level triggers questions vs draft vs formal). Does not explain parameter roles or readiness score thresholds. Output schema may cover return format, but the core logic is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; does not explain how 'answers', 'allow_assumptions', or 'min_readiness_score' affect compilation outcome.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compiles complete product specs and dev prompt, and outputs questions/draft/formal spec based on completeness. It's specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like spec_interrogate (which may drill down) and product_spec_assist (which may assist). However, explicit differentiation from siblings is missing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like product_spec_assist or spec_interrogate. Description only states its function, not context of use.

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