yaaif_agent_spec_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Check', but does not confirm side effects, return format, permissions, or any other behavioral aspects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and subject. It contains no filler or redundant wording. While it is brief, it is efficiently 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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'coverage' means, what the tool returns, or how the agent should interpret the results. An agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.

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 single parameter spec_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what it refers to. The parameter name hints it is an ID, but without further context, an agent cannot be certain what value to pass. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Scenario slot coverage against the live tenant catalog'), which distinguishes it from other agent_spec tools like agent_spec_get or agent_spec_list. It is not a tautology, but the meaning of 'coverage' is domain-specific and not fully explained.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools to consider. There is no explicit context for when this check is appropriate.

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