speckit_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It explains that the tool reads and reports which project artifacts exist, covering the core behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or read-only, nor does it address edge cases like invalid project paths. For a low-risk status tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary function, the second lists the artifact types. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names all artifact categories that the status covers. It could improve by mentioning output format or error handling, but the provided information gives a solid mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, including its purpose and default behavior. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so the schema already carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("status of a spec-kit project"), then enumerates the artifact types it covers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckit_check or speckit_implement.

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 when one needs an overview of existing spec-kit artifacts, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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