analyze_spec_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently details the analysis types, return structure, and the fact that sweeping all specs is possible. It lacks mention of performance implications or read-only nature, but is adequate.

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 dense with information but remains coherent and front-loaded. It covers multiple modes, return fields, and severity levels in a single paragraph without excessive wordiness.

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 output schema and moderate complexity, the description provides a complete picture: input modes, analysis types, return structure with fields, and linkage to a sibling tool. It answers the key questions an agent would have.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the purpose of each parameter: spec_id for one spec, raw_text for a draft, omitting both to sweep all. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 runs heuristic checks on spec bodies, listing specific types of issues detected (vague language, implementation leakage, role references without preconditions). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning pairing with propose_spec_improvements.

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 three clear usage modes (by spec_id, raw_text, or sweep all) and refers to a sibling tool for follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other analysis tools.

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