speckit_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns version and system information, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects (likely read-only) or how it behaves if installation is missing, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no padding or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple check tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its role and invoke it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, as shown by the empty input schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for the description to add parameter details. The description's mention of return info is irrelevant to params.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'spec-kit and all required tools', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like speckit_version (which only returns version) and speckit_status. It also states the return value (version and system information), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 as a pre-flight check before running other speckit tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, but the verb 'Check that... installed' implies a verification context.

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