spec_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what it returns (a list of validation problems, presumably), side effects, or any constraints. For a validation tool, the return contract is entirely absent.

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?

Extremely short, which is good, but the structure is a cryptic fragment rather than a clear front-loaded statement. It's concise to the point of being under-informative.

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 complexity of spec validation, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'spec' is, what 'problems' look like, what 'empty: whole' means, or how 'weapon' affects validation. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 50%: the 'spec' parameter has a description ('a spec to check; or name a saved one'), but the 'weapon' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. The description adds no parameter semantics; it only gestures at the empty-spec behavior.

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 'Every problem with a spec, as sentences (empty: whole)' is a fragment that implies validation of a spec but never states a clear verb like 'validate'. It's cryptic and an agent would struggle to distinguish spec_validate from siblings like contract_check, blueprint_check, or gunkit_verify.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, its prerequisites, or how it differs from other validation/check tools in the sibling list. The parenthetical '(empty: whole)' hints at some scope behavior but is too terse to be actionable.

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