spec_coding_requirements_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 implies a state transition ('proceed to the design phase') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens if requirements aren't complete, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its effects.

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 states the tool's action concisely. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or context. There's no wasted text, earning it a high score for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (involving phase transitions in a workflow), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirming' entails, what 'proceed' does, or the expected outcome. For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings indicating a multi-step process, more detail is needed to guide proper use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (session_id and feature_name) documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to confirming requirements or proceeding to design. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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's purpose as confirming requirements collection completion and proceeding to design phase, which is clear but vague. It uses the verb 'confirm' and mentions 'requirements collection' and 'design phase', but doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_requirements_start' or 'spec_coding_design_start'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., after requirements collection is done), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings such as 'spec_coding_requirements_start' (which might start requirements) or 'spec_coding_design_confirmed' (which confirms design). Without this, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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