speckit_specify

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), permissions, prerequisites, or behavior when 'content' is omitted. The only added behavioral detail is the file path, which is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. Minor redundancy exists ('Create...' then 'Creates...'), but overall it is concise 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?

Given 4 optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand parameter interactions (e.g., what happens when feature_name is omitted) or expected return values. It is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'content', 'feature_name', or 'project_path'. It only reiterates that feature_name maps to a directory, which 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 identifies the tool's action ('Create or update a feature specification') and specifies the exact output path ('specs/{feature}/spec.md'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like speckit_plan or speckit_tasks. The verb+resource is specific and 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 for creating or updating a spec file, which is distinct from siblings that handle plans, tasks, or checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when/when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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