构建 Spec Kit 命令

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It mentions the output (7 commands) and tech stack (Vue 3 + TypeScript) but omits side effects, file creation, permissions, return format, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a build operation.

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 two sentences. The first states the core action and output; the second provides tech stack and quality attributes. It is concise and front-loaded without unnecessary filler.

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 one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a high-level purpose and input but lacks detail on return values, filesystem effects, or failure conditions. For a build tool, this incomplete context leaves the agent uncertain about post-invocation outcomes.

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 100% coverage with a single required parameter described as '需求总结 JSON 文件路径'. The description's reference to '完整的需求总结' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 builds the Spec Kit 7 commands (listing them explicitly) based on a requirements summary. The verb 'build' and resource 'Spec Kit 7 commands' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze or preview.

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 phrase '基于完整的需求总结' implies a prerequisite (a complete requirements summary), giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use this tool or alternatives, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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