spec_coding_workflow_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 starting a workflow and beginning a phase, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, or what happens upon invocation. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the action and phase.

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. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'starting' entails behaviorally, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools. For a tool in a complex sibling set, more context is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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') and the target ('specs workflow'), and specifies the initial phase ('goal collection phase'). It distinguishes this as the beginning of a workflow rather than other phases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_requirements_start'.

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 implies this is the first step in a workflow ('Start'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or context for selection, leaving usage unclear beyond the implied initiation.

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