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 starting a phase and providing guidance, but doesn't clarify what 'guidance' entails (e.g., structured output, prompts, or instructions), whether this initiates a state change, or any side effects like authentication needs or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 key action and outcome without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the workflow context, but it earns its place by being direct and clear.

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 in a multi-phase workflow, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' looks like, how this tool interacts with others (e.g., 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed'), or the expected behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('session_id' and 'feature_name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Start the task planning phase') and the outcome ('provide guidance for creating the task list'), which gives a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start', which likely handle different phases of the same workflow.

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 (e.g., whether other tools must be called first), exclusions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with its siblings, leaving the agent to guess based on naming conventions alone.

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