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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'proceed to the design phase' which implies a state transition, but doesn't describe what this transition entails—whether it's a database update, triggers other processes, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple confirmation tool and front-loads the main purpose. While it could potentially be more structured with additional context, there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for understanding the tool's full context. It doesn't explain what 'completion of requirements collection' means, what happens after confirmation, or what the tool returns. For a workflow transition tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (session_id and feature_name). This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without requiring description compensation.

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 completion and proceeding to design phase, which is clear but somewhat vague. It uses specific verbs ('confirm', 'proceed') but doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_start' or 'spec_coding_design_start'. The purpose is understandable but lacks precise differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_start' and 'spec_coding_design_start', it's unclear what triggers this confirmation step or what prerequisites exist. There's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or explicit alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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