generate_functional_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output structure but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This lacks clarity for an agent to understand the tool's operational impact.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and listing key contents without extraneous information. It is appropriately concise, though a bulleted list could improve scanability.

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 value details are not needed. However, the description omits context about authentication parameters (auth_user_id, auth_password) and data_center, which are relevant for an agent to configure the call. The tool specification is mostly adequate but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 43%, with only three of seven parameters described. The description adds high-level semantics about the output but does not detail uncovered parameters like data_center, auth_user_id, scope_fields, or auth_password, which require clarification.

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 it generates a functional specification for an SF entity/portlet, listing specific sections like entity overview, field mapping, business rules, etc. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that generate other types of documents (e.g., generate_data_dictionary, generate_rule_doc).

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 implies it is used when a functional spec is needed for an entity/portlet, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like generate_data_dictionary or generate_rule_spec, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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