preview_specification_generation

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. 'Build a practical specification preview' implies a read-only preview operation, but it does not state whether this mutates anything, whether it requires an open document, what 'practical' means, or what the preview contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful information for brevity.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the preview is for, how it relates to the assembly tree, what the parameters do, or what the agent should do with the result. The sibling context shows many similar preview tools, so more context is needed.

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 must compensate for the two parameters (document_id, include_root), but it does not mention either parameter. The description gives no hint about what document_id refers to or what include_root controls, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 specific verb ('Build') and resource ('specification preview from the assembly tree'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from generic tools. However, it does not differentiate it from closely related siblings like preview_specification_changes, preview_specification_autofill, or preview_spw_generation, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several preview_* tools (preview_specification_changes, preview_specification_autofill, preview_spw_generation), and the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or context to route the agent to this specific tool.

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