openspec_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'outputs' instructions, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how the output is structured. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and target. It avoids verbosity and directly states the purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming bloated.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is still too terse. It lacks context about what 'enriched instructions' means, what 'apply' refers to, and any expected output format or behavior. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' example, which scored 2 for completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description 'for an artifact or apply' aligns with the 'artifact' parameter but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. The 'json' and 'changeName' parameters are only explained in the schema, which is adequate.

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 outputs enriched instructions for an artifact or 'apply'. This action is specific and distinct from sibling tools like openspec_show or openspec_read_file, which likely display or read content. However, the term 'enriched' is somewhat vague, leaving ambiguity about what kind of enrichment is provided.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. The only hint is the name and phrase 'for an artifact or apply', which implies usage but lacks explicit direction.

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