specs_validate

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the source/sink content model and, importantly, that proposed specs require human review before findings are baselined.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped tightly to format, semantics, and the review gate. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the middle sentence about sources/sinks is somewhat compressed and the final governance sentence could arguably be split or trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return/validation-result structure need not be explained here. The description covers purpose, accepted format and version, the source/sink model, and the downstream review workflow; the remaining gap is the ambiguity of the path parameter.

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 a single required parameter (path) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. The description implies the path targets a project taint specification, but never states whether it is a file path, directory, or project root, nor acceptable extensions, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource (validate a project taint specification), pins the accepted formats and version (TOML/JSON, version = 1), and ties the tool to the sibling it feeds (audit_scan), so an agent can place it precisely without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear use context: validate before audit_scan consumes the spec, and proposed specifications must pass human review before their findings enter a baseline. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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