suite_doc_detect_spec

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the detection mechanism (sniffing top-level *_version field) and return values, but does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors beyond returning 'unknown'. While the behavior is mostly clear, additional traits like idempotency are missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant information. Every word provides value.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers detection logic, return format, and fallback. It could list the 12 recognized specs or clarify error handling for malformed input, but completeness is high for its scope.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: the 'body' parameter is a JSON document with a top-level *_version field. It explains how the field is used and what outputs are produced. This compensates well for the bare 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 clearly states the tool detects which Kinetic Gain Suite spec a JSON document belongs to by sniffing the top-level *_version field. It specifies the return structure and lists capabilities (recognizes 12 specs, fallback to 'unknown'). This is specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings implicitly by its unique function.

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 for identifying document specs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., suite_doc_drift). No exclusions or context are provided, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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