Delimit Zero Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: it is read-only on the project source, calls backends.gateway_core.run_zero_spec, and may invoke a Python subprocess. This is relevant execution context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the rest is organized into short labeled sections: when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Each section carries distinct information without unnecessary padding.

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?

With only two optional parameters, a well-documented schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: supported frameworks, alternative routing, and execution side effects. It is complete for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters (python_bin, project_dir) are already documented with defaults and semantic descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Extract OpenAPI spec from framework source code'. It also explicitly differentiates from delimit_lint by stating this tool generates a spec from source rather than operating on an existing spec file.

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 gives explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, names the exact alternative tools (delimit_lint, delimit_diff), and specifies the deciding condition: absence of a checked-in spec file. Tool selection is unambiguous.

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