spec_visualize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that the LLM must read the spec and assign scores, identify the weakest axis and tip, and explains the chart's color semantics (green/yellow/red). This goes beyond the schema by revealing the LLM's role and the interpretation of the visual output.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the LLM's task, and the third provides color semantics. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what the LLM must do. It identifies the four axes, the required 'weakest' and 'tip' outputs, and the chart's color legend. It does not fully elaborate on edge cases or the exact SVG output format, but the essential context is covered.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description lists the four axes and mentions 'weakest' and 'tip', but these are already fully described in the schema with ranges and meanings. No additional parameter-level semantics are added beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Score a spec and generate an SVG radar chart.' It clearly identifies the 4 scoring axes and the chart output, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spec_compare (comparison) and spec_score (scoring only).

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 implies usage by explaining the tool expects the LLM to read the spec and score it, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over spec_score or spec_compare. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only the implied context of needing a radar chart visualization.

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