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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (displays progress overview, shows completion status) and mentions the relationship to tasks.md for detailed task status. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are any rate limits or side effects.

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 appropriately sized with two main sections: a purpose statement and usage instructions. The first sentence clearly states the core function. The instructions section is useful but could be more concise. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though the relationship to tasks.md could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose and usage scenarios well, but doesn't describe the output format or behavioral constraints. Given the tool's moderate complexity (status overview with parameters), the description should ideally provide more information about what the agent can expect as a result.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'projectPath' and 'specName' interact, what format 'specName' should take, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Display comprehensive specification progress overview' with specific verbs ('display', 'shows') and resources ('specification progress overview', 'phases', 'task implementation progress'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on status overview rather than approvals, logging, or guidance functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools by name.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'when resuming work on a spec or checking overall completion status.' It also provides guidance on next steps: 'After viewing status, read tasks.md directly to see all tasks and their status markers.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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