spec_coding_tasks_confirmed

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 confirming completion and proceeding to execution, but lacks details on what this entails—e.g., whether it triggers side effects, requires specific permissions, or changes system state. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that seems to involve workflow transitions.

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 action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including brief context. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise 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 of a workflow transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'confirming completion' entails, what happens after proceeding to execution, or any potential outcomes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's role and effects within the sibling toolset.

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 relate to the confirmation process. Since schema coverage is high, 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 action ('Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_execute_start', leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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 transitioning from planning to execution, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to siblings such as 'spec_coding_design_confirmed' or 'spec_coding_goal_confirmed', offering minimal usage context.

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