analyze_spec_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the analysis is read-only, whether it modifies the document, what kinds of issues are detected, or what the tool returns. 'Analyze' implies a non-mutating operation, but that is not made explicit.

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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. It contains no redundant explanations, though the word 'basic' is somewhat vague and could be replaced with more concrete scoping 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot determine expected output, parameter behavior, or how this tool relates to the many sibling specification and analysis tools.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'rules_path' does or how it affects the analysis. 'document_id' is only weakly implied by 'selected or active document', so both parameters remain largely underspecified.

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 states a clear action ('analyze') and a resource ('specification issues in the selected or active document'). It is not a tautology, but the qualifier 'basic' is vague and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like analyze_naming_issues or other specification-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_naming_issues or preview_specification_generation. The only context given is that it operates on the selected or active document, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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