speckit_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Create or update' but does not clarify whether it overwrites existing files, how it merges content, or whether it requires an initialized project. It also doesn't disclose potential side effects or permissions needed. The file path and content format are helpful, but overwrite semantics are ambiguous.

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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Create or update') and specific artifact path. Every phrase earns its place, providing clear action, target, and content characteristics with no fluff.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple create/update tool: it names the output file, its location, and the nature of the content. The schema covers all parameters. While it could mention prerequisites like an initialized project or overwrite behavior, the essential information for using the tool is present and the tool's scope is narrow.

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 all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds context about the output file and content structure, but does not add further meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Create or update a task breakdown' and specifies the exact output path 'specs/{feature}/tasks.md'. It also describes content style ('phased, actionable tasks with dependencies and parallel opportunities'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckit_plan or speckit_tasks_to_issues that have different focuses.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when another sibling tool would be more appropriate. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of X' instruction.

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