generate_spec_draft

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool appends a `spec_generated` decision to the index (a side effect) and returns a structured object with fields like `ready_for_mk_spec_master`. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error conditions or authorization needs.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: first sentence captures core purpose, then templates, side effect, and return fields. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: templates, return structure, side effect, and integration with mk-spec-master. It is missing error handling or edge-case behavior, but for a draft generator, it is adequately complete.

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 0%, but the description explains the two parameters: `initiative_id` (the target initiative) and `template` with its three options (default, lite, detailed) and their contents. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides meaningful semantics for parameter selection.

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 produces a markdown spec draft for one initiative with specific formatting for mk-spec-master ingestion. It names three templates (default, lite, detailed) and their contents. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 usage for generating spec drafts but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like add_initiative or analyze_initiative. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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