create-spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors such as clarifying ambiguity, validating against codebase, considering security/edge cases/tests, and writing to a specific directory, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance expectations, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral details. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the behavioral aspects more tightly with the usage scenarios.

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's complexity (involving validation and writing to files) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It explains the output location (.project-memory/specs/) but could benefit from mentioning the format or structure of the created spec to enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create detailed specification') and resources ('from user requirements'), and distinguishes it from siblings by detailing its unique function of writing specs to a specific directory (.project-memory/specs/). It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the process includes clarifying ambiguity, validation, and consideration of security/edge cases/tests.

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 explicit usage guidelines with three specific scenarios when to use this tool (e.g., user asks to create/write a spec, describes a feature, or uses phrases like 'spec this'), offering clear context for activation. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on spec creation rather than other tasks like initialization or review.

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