spec_coding_requirements_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. It mentions 'start' and 'provide guidance', implying an initiating action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what 'guidance' entails (e.g., textual output, structured data), or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 states the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no waste, but it might benefit from slightly more structure to enhance 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 tool's complexity (initiating a phase with guidance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means, the format of output, or how this fits into the broader workflow with siblings. For a tool that likely returns instructional content, more detail is needed to guide the agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'session_id' and 'feature_name' clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters influence the requirements collection or guidance. Given 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 requirements collection phase and provide[s] guidance for requirements gathering', which indicates a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'requirements collection phase' and 'requirements gathering', but doesn't clarify what resource or system this applies to, nor how it distinguishes from siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start'. The purpose is vague rather than tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when in a workflow), or exclusions. With siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_confirmed' and 'spec_coding_design_start', there's no indication of sequencing or differentiation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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