speckit_clarify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that scan returns up to 5 prioritized questions, answer writes inline in spec.md, and it does not write clarifications.md. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema alone implies, especially the specific file exclusions and the prioritized question output.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes information: taxonomy categories, question limit, file targets, and an explicit non-target. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the key return behavior for scan (up to 5 prioritized questions) and the side effect for answer (writes inline in spec.md). It covers the primary invocation details and the non-writing boundary. Minor gaps exist, such as not listing the 9 taxonomy categories or prioritization criteria, but overall it is complete enough for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the behavior of the 'action' parameter in context: scan produces up to 5 prioritized questions, and answer modifies spec.md. It also clarifies that answers are written to spec.md rather than clarifications.md, enriching the answer parameter's meaning beyond the schema description.

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 manages clarification questions for a feature, and specifies two concrete operations (scan and answer) with their targets (spec.md). The verb 'manage' is broad but immediately narrowed by the specific actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckit_specify or speckit_plan, which focus on other aspects of the workflow.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use scan (identify ambiguities) versus answer (write an answer inline). It also explicitly states what the tool does not do (does not write clarifications.md), which sets a boundary. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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