spec_coding_design_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. While 'Start' implies an initiation action, it doesn't describe what 'starting' entails (e.g., creates a new document, updates a status, triggers notifications), what permissions are needed, or what happens if the phase is already started. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 a tool that initiates a phase and provides guidance. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' entails (e.g., format, content, or examples of design documents), what the expected outcome is, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (session_id and feature_name) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as how they relate to the design phase or guidance provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('design documentation phase'), and indicates it provides guidance for creating design documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_workflow_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start' that might also initiate phases.

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 multiple sibling tools that appear to be part of a workflow (e.g., 'spec_coding_requirements_start', 'spec_coding_tasks_start'), there's no indication of sequencing, prerequisites, or exclusions for this design phase initiation.

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