spec_coding_design_confirmed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'proceed to the task planning phase,' suggesting a state transition, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens if the design isn't complete, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with key details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'confirming' entails, what the next phase involves, or any error conditions. For a tool that seems to manage workflow state transitions, more context is needed to understand its full role and effects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'session_id' and 'feature_name' clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to confirming design or task planning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool confirms design completion and proceeds to task planning, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'design document' refers to or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like spec_coding_design_start or spec_coding_tasks_confirmed, making it somewhat vague.

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 after design completion, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spec_coding_tasks_start or spec_coding_tasks_confirmed. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving usage unclear.

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