spec_coding_tasks_confirmed

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 confirming completion and proceeding to execution, which implies a state transition, but doesn't disclose what happens upon invocation (e.g., whether it triggers side effects, updates a system state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the confirmation and transition aspects, but overall it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 workflow state transitions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirming' entails (e.g., validation, logging), what 'proceeding' triggers, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to adequately guide an AI agent.

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 both parameters (session_id and feature_name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters relate to the confirmation process. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 a clear action ('Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase'), which provides a specific verb and indicates a transition between phases. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., spec_coding_tasks_start, spec_coding_execute_start) in terms of what exactly is being confirmed or how it differs from other confirmation tools in the workflow.

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 context ('proceed to the execution phase'), suggesting this tool is used after task planning is complete. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spec_coding_tasks_start for starting tasks, spec_coding_execute_start for execution), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in actionable guidance.

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