spec_coding_workflow_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 starting a workflow and beginning goal collection, but doesn't describe what this entails—such as whether it initiates a multi-step process, requires user input, has side effects, or returns any data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to understand its 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 any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Start the specs workflow'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 sibling tools (e.g., multiple phases like design, requirements, tasks), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the workflow entails, how it interacts with other tools, or what happens after starting. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left with minimal context to use this tool effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly avoids unnecessary parameter information.

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 specs workflow and begin[s] the goal collection phase', which provides a clear action ('Start') and target ('specs workflow'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_requirements_start', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specific workflow initiation different.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for starting a workflow and beginning goal collection, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose it over other start tools (e.g., 'spec_coding_design_start'), or what context triggers its use. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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