parse_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parsing behavior: heading matching (case-insensitive, multiple languages), item extraction (numbered/bulleted), and return structure ({spec_id, title, acceptance_criteria[], roles[], preconditions[], _meta}). It also notes that 'roles + preconditions are placeholders in v0.1,' setting appropriate expectations. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter guidance, and then return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

For a parsing tool with no output schema, the description explains input parameters (both optional, with clear use cases) and the return structure. It mentions version limitations (placeholders in v0.1). It does not cover error cases (e.g., both parameters provided, neither provided) or rate limits, but these are minor for this tool.

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 compensates fully. It explains both parameters: spec_id (for active adapter) and raw_text (for ad-hoc parsing). It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the return structure and the context of each parameter.

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's purpose: 'Extract structured acceptance criteria from a spec body.' It specifies the verb (extract), resource (acceptance criteria), and method (looks for headings matching given patterns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_spec (which retrieves raw spec) and analyze_spec_quality (which evaluates quality).

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: 'Pass spec_id to use the active adapter, or raw_text to parse ad-hoc spec text without going through any source.' This clarifies when to use each parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or compare to alternatives like fetch_spec for raw retrieval.

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