generate_openspec_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, read/write nature, or any constraints beyond the obvious generation action. This is insufficient for the agent to anticipate consequences.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core action. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of output schema and the simplicity of parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the generated spec contains (e.g., file path, content), nor does it address potential errors or success conditions. For a generation tool, this omission is significant.

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 100%, so the base expectation is 3. The description mentions 'requirements' but adds no new information about the 'projectType' parameter or syntax expectations. It meets the minimum but adds little value 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 indicates the tool generates an OpenSpec specification file from requirements, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_openspec_project or optimize_code_by_spec, but the name and context make the purpose understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It only states the basic function without any context about prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios.

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