spec_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification is done entirely offline, which is useful contextual behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, though 'status' implies a safe query. More explicit disclosure of non-mutating behavior and authorization needs would improve transparency.

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 that efficiently packs the purpose and the returned fields. It is front-loaded with the main query, but the list of fields makes it slightly dense. Still, every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no fluff.

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 that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context about the core purpose and included attributes. It does not mention any prerequisites or failure scenarios, but for a simple status query, the description is sufficiently complete within the existing structured 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. According to the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline score of 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information. No compensation is needed.

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 indicates this tool checks for and reports on an approved spec bundle, listing specific fields (version, source phase, approver, story count, approval signature state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bundle approval status rather than individual stories. However, the question format ('Is there...?') is slightly less direct than a verb like 'Get' or 'List'.

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 implies usage for verifying the state of an approved spec bundle, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like check_story or list_stories. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references. The 'verified entirely offline' hint suggests a context but not comparative guidance.

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