Manage Specs

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral weight. It does: scaffold generates, ingest parses into graph nodes, verify marks criteria, decompose creates plan/milestones/subtasks. These are honest descriptions of mutating behaviors. It does not disclose deeper effects like undo behavior or permissions, but that is not critical here.

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 first sentence states the broad purpose, and the second packs all seven actions into a compact, scannable list. Every phrase adds information; there is no repetition, filler, or restating of the tool name. This is an efficient structure for a multi-action dispatcher.

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 13 parameters, 7 actions, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is strong on action semantics but weak on action-to-parameter mapping. An agent might struggle to know, for example, which parameters to pass for 'compliance' or whether 'template' requires both 'template' and 'name'. This is the main completeness gap.

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 the schema itself documents all 13 parameters. The description adds semantics to the action enumeration values (e.g., what 'scaffold' means) but does not map which parameters each action requires. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter-level burden.

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 opens with a clear domain ('Spec-Driven Development (SDD) lifecycle and workflow template generation') and then enumerates seven concrete actions with brief parenthetical effects. This distinguishes manage_specs from sibling graph-management tools like manage_nodes and manage_edges by scope and action set.

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 action list establishes clear context for when to use this tool (when performing SDD scaffold/ingest/export/compliance/verify/decompose/template operations). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the use cases are self-evident from the action names and descriptions.

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