speckit_implement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions an 'optional checklist gate' and that tasks can be marked complete, but does not explain what this gate does, whether it modifies files, or the effects of the 'update_status' action. For a tool capable of mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 composed of two concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary detail, though 'related docs' is vague, and the omission of update_status makes it slightly incomplete. Overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 multi-action tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers most actions but misses the update_status action in the enum. It also lacks details on return values, side effects, and the 'checklist gate' mechanics. The schema fills some gaps, but the description does not fully carry the tool's usage context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema – it references 'optional checklist gate' which is already described in the force parameter. It does not explain the relationship between task_id and feature_name beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Track implementation progress for a feature' and enumerates primary actions (read, mark tasks complete, add notes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_tasks or speckit_status, and it omits the 'update_status' action from the enum, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Usage is implied through the action list: use this tool when you need to read tasks, complete them, or add notes for a feature. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given, nor are any exclusions mentioned. The description does not reference sibling tools such as speckit_checklist or speckit_tasks, providing only implied context.

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