yaaif_agent_spec_adoption_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Preview', implying read-only, but it doesn't explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe what the preview returns or any side effects. The behavior is only implied, not disclosed. For a preview tool, stating that it is non-mutating and describing the output format would be essential.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Preview'. Every word contributes to the purpose without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the minimal description, this is incomplete. Key terms like 'bindings', 'live baseline', and 'authored fields' are undefined, and the return value of the preview is not described. An agent would struggle to know what to expect or how to interpret the result. The description is too brief for a tool with this level of complexity and sibling ambiguity.

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 has one parameter, spec_id, with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explain what spec_id refers to beyond the name, leaving the agent to guess that it identifies an agent spec. Since the schema does not help and the description lacks detail, this is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Preview' and the resources: 'selected existing bindings', 'current live baseline', and 'authored fields preserved by adoption'. It indicates a preview operation related to adoption, distinguishing it from generic previews like yaaif_agent_spec_sync_preview by mentioning adoption specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other preview tools in the sibling list, so it's clear but not maximally distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools like yaaif_agent_spec_adopt, yaaif_agent_spec_sync_preview, and other previews, but the description gives no indication of the appropriate context or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and the adoption-related phrase.

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