spec_coding_tasks_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 planning phase' and 'provide guidance', but doesn't specify what 'guidance' entails (e.g., structured output, prompts, or templates), whether it's interactive or one-time, or any prerequisites like session state. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves key behavioral traits undefined.

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 front-loads the core action ('Start the task planning phase') and purpose ('provide guidance for creating the task list'). There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating phases or outcomes. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 'task planning phase' and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' includes, how results are returned, or dependencies on other tools in the sibling list. For a tool with no structured support, more detail on behavior and outcomes is needed to be fully actionable.

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, such as explaining how these parameters influence the task planning or guidance. 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 the tool 'Start[s] the task planning phase and provide[s] guidance for creating the task list', which gives a vague purpose. It mentions a verb ('Start') and resource ('task planning phase'), but lacks specificity about what 'task planning' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start'. This makes it unclear if it's for initial setup, iterative refinement, or a specific workflow step.

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_design_start' and 'spec_coding_requirements_start', it's unclear if this tool is for a later phase, a parallel process, or a different scope. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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