validate_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it omits whether validation is read-only, whether it mutates or repairs the spec, what permissions are needed, and what a failed validation means. Only the vague term 'legacy spec' hints at scope, with no elaboration.

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 filler, front-loading the verb. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than concision.

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. Still, for a validation tool sitting among many similar validators, the description lacks the scope and routing detail an agent needs to select 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% for the single spec_id parameter, so the description should compensate but does not: it never explains what a spec_id is, what format it takes, or where it comes from. The one sentence adds no parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and resource (required sections of a legacy spec), so the action is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling validators such as validate-design and validate-gap, leaving the agent to guess which validator applies to its case.

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 indication of when this tool should be used, what qualifies as a 'legacy spec', or how it relates to the other validate-* siblings. The agent must infer the triggering condition entirely.

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