Generate Intent Spec Scaffold

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

No annotations provided. Description states tool returns a template but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or discuss limits. Provides useful context on what gets pre-filled. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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, zero waste. Purpose and usage clearly stated. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema; description does not detail the format or structure of the returned template (e.g., YAML, sections). Users may need to know what 'full-9-section' contains. Parameter coverage is good, but completeness could be improved by describing output.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters clearly. The tool description adds context by stating they 'pre-fill' the template fields, linking parameters to output. Since schema does most of the work, score is slightly above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states tool returns intent-spec templates, lists three variants ('blank', 'level-1-mvr', 'full-9-section'), and notes usage for new or retrofit scenarios. Distinguishes from siblings: audit_intent_spec and assess_retrofit_level are different operations.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when starting a new agent/skill or retrofitting an existing one.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but siblings make distinction clear. Could be improved by adding exclusions (e.g., 'not for auditing').

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