speckit_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool writes files, specifically plan.md and optionally research/design artifacts, and that it can update existing plans. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, directory creation, or dependencies on prior initialization (e.g., speckit_init). This is partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence adds meaningful context: the first covers the core plan.md creation, the second expands to research/design artifacts. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks critical behavioral context such as overwrite semantics, prerequisites, or how phases relate to each other. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the description does not fully cover the workflow, leaving it acceptable but incomplete for complex usage.

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 does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, except for an overall sense that phases map to artifact types. Since the schema already documents each parameter (including phase enum, content fields, etc.), the description adds marginal value in this dimension.

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 specific verbs ('Create or update') and identifies the resource ('technical implementation plan') with an exact file path ('specs/{feature}/plan.md'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on planning artifacts, and even mentions additional research/design artifact support, which is 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 its usage context (planning phase) through the tool name and content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like speckit_tasks or speckit_implement. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on naming.

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