validate_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, what the result looks like (list of problems, severities, empty-vs-clean signal), or whether validation is shallow or deep. It does reveal the kind of rules applied (finish presence, material compatibility), which is real behavioral content, but the coverage is partial.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is a strength for scanning, though it tips into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics and safety on its own; it does neither. For a tool whose whole value is a structured problem report, silence on the report's form leaves the agent unable to plan around the result.

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 single 'spec' parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema provides essentially no semantics. The description hints at internal structure (slots, finishes, materials) but never explains the expected shape, required keys, or units, leaving the only required argument effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific resource (a coating spec) and implicitly the action (surface every problem in it), and the two examples ('a slot without a finish', 'a finish that does not go on its material') make the purpose concrete. It falls short of a 5 because there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from near-siblings such as check_coating or check_finish, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the many check_*/list_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is the whole-spec sweep versus per-object checks purely from the word 'spec'.

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