speckit_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Strictly read-only — never writes files,' which is a strong side-effect disclosure. Enumerating the six passes also provides insight into the tool's internal behavior, though it does not mention runtime prerequisites or output behavior.

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 purpose and lists the six passes, the second adds the read-only guarantee. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

The six-pass analysis is complex, yet the description does not explain what each pass entails or describe the output format (e.g., report, logs, exit codes). Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves ambiguity about what the user will receive, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, such as how the parameters interact or example values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and identifies the resource as 'cross-artifact consistency for a feature,' listing six concrete analysis passes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like speckit_check or speckit_status, which likely serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used for analyzing consistency via the six passes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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