Create Specification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the spec starts in 'draft' status and the tool enforces documentation of 'observable behavior without including implementation details.' However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, behavior on duplicate names, or what the tool returns after creation, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences with no filler: it states the core action, the structured template approach, the resulting draft status, and lists the available templates. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the template options, the constraint on content, and the initial status, which is sufficient for an analyst to decide to use it. There is no output schema and no mention of return values or next steps, but the create action is straightforward and the missing details are not critical for this tool's usage.

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 provides 100% coverage of the four parameters with descriptions, including the enum for template and the constraint on initial_content. The description repeats the template list but adds no significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents everything.

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 function: 'Create a new behavioral specification for a component of the target software.' The verb 'create' plus the resource 'behavioral specification' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanroom_spec_read, cleanroom_spec_list, and cleanroom_spec_submit, which handle other lifecycle stages.

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 context about when to use the tool: to create a new spec in 'draft' status using a structured template. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names (e.g., cleanroom_spec_submit, cleanroom_spec_review) imply these are for later stages, making the create tool's role clear.

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