prepare_generation_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: not whether this writes an artifact, mutates state, requires the spec to be validated first, or is safe/idempotent. It only restates that two inputs are combined.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, and the one clause that could carry meaning ('contexto para o agente') is left undefined.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, which lowers the bar slightly. Still, for a tool with two required, entirely undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and a cryptic purpose, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters. It alludes to 'spec legada' and 'skill' but never explains what spec_id or skill_domain accept, whether skill_domain is a fixed vocabulary, or how a legacy spec differs from a normal spec.

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 names a verb ('Combina'/'combines') and two resources (a legacy spec and a skill) that map onto the required parameters, so the general intent is recoverable. However, 'contexto para o agente' is vague about what is actually produced, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like validate_spec or get_skill.

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 statement of when this tool should be used, what precondition triggers it, or which sibling it replaces. An agent must guess that this is a pre-generation assembly step rather than a validation or retrieval step.

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