Get Spec Compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait, but does not explain scope limitations (e.g., whether 'project' is optional and what happens when omitted) or any other operational nuances.

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 one concise sentence (11 words), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with a single optional parameter, the description lists the three key outputs, which helps the agent understand the return scope. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what 'unfulfilled criteria' means or how the tool behaves without a project, slightly reducing 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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'project' parameter (described as 'Optional project identifier.'). The description adds no extra parameter context, so it relies on the schema; per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Calculate') and resource ('Spec Compliance matrix'), and names three concrete outputs (matrix, coverage ratio, unfulfilled criteria). This makes the purpose distinct, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_requirement' or 'get_project_summary'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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