spec_coding_execute_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'start the task execution phase' and 'provide guidance,' but fails to detail critical aspects such as what 'guidance' entails (e.g., is it instructional output, a status update, or something else?), whether this operation is read-only or mutative, potential side effects, or any permissions or rate limits. This lack of information makes it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond a basic action.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more specific. There's no unnecessary verbiage, making it efficient in length, but the vagueness slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 complexity implied by starting an execution phase and providing guidance, along with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means in terms of output, potential errors, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves a multi-step process (as suggested by sibling names), more context is needed to help the agent use it correctly.

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 clear documentation for each parameter (session_id, feature_name, task_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to 'starting the task execution phase' or 'providing guidance.' Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 'Start[s] the task execution phase and provide[s] guidance for task execution,' which indicates a purpose involving initiating execution and offering guidance. However, it's somewhat vague—'task execution phase' lacks specificity about what exactly is executed, and 'provide guidance' is ambiguous about the nature of that guidance. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings, such as 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start,' which might also involve starting phases.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start' to help differentiate usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on when this specific tool is appropriate.

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