spec-design

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose how read vs. save mode is triggered (presumably the content parameter), whether saving overwrites an existing design.md, what permissions or approval state is required, or whether the operation is destructive.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource plus precondition front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an unexplained read/write trigger, the description leaves the agent guessing on the core mechanics of a two-parameter tool.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'design.md' loosely maps to content, but feature_name is never explained and no format, expected values, or null-content semantics are given.

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?

States a specific resource (design.md) and the two operations (read/save), plus the workflow position (after requirements approval), which separates it from spec-requirements and spec-tasks. It is clear, but the description never explains what determines whether it reads or saves, leaving the dual mode 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?

The precondition 'depois da aprovação dos requisitos' tells the agent exactly when in the spec workflow this tool applies, implicitly positioning spec-requirements before it and spec-tasks after. It does not, however, state which sibling to use instead when requirements are not yet approved, nor when to prefer reading over saving.

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