spec_coding_requirements_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'start[ing]' and 'provid[ing] guidance', which suggests an initiating or informational action, but fails to detail critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions are needed, how guidance is delivered, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Start the requirements collection phase') and adds a secondary function ('provide guidance'), making it appropriately sized for its content, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 of initiating a requirements phase and providing guidance, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, how it interacts with the session or feature, and behavioral traits, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and effects in the workflow.

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 additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain how these parameters influence the requirements collection or guidance. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, reflecting adequate but unenhanced parameter understanding.

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 requirements collection phase and provide[s] guidance for requirements gathering', which gives a vague purpose involving initiating a phase and offering guidance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start' by focusing on 'requirements', but lacks specificity on what 'guidance' entails or what resource it acts upon, making it somewhat unclear beyond the general domain.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage at the start of a requirements phase, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_confirmed' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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