openspec_validate

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 only says 'validate' but does not explain whether validation is read-only, what side effects might occur, how errors are reported, or whether it modifies anything. This lack of transparency is significant for a tool that could potentially alter state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing valuable context for brevity. Still, it earns its place and is not padded.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the validation workflow and expected outcomes. It does not mention how the flags (all, json, strict, itemName) affect behavior, what a validation report looks like, or how this interacts with other openspec commands. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with a description, so the baseline is 3. The textual description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, it does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the action ('validate') and the resource ('a change proposal or spec'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like openspec_list or openspec_show. It is concise and uses a specific verb, but it doesn't elaborate on the scope or variants of validation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the function, leaving the context and selection logic entirely to the agent.

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