Generates status reports or gap analyses for a feature's Spec-Driven Development workflow, using implementation details to identify missing steps or issues.
Gera relatório de status ou análise de lacunas do workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | report | |
| feature_name | Yes | ||
| implementation_summary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 say whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes any artifact, how the 'mode' selection changes behavior, or what the generated report depends on beyond the feature name.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with no filler. But its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since key parameter and routing information is absent.
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 explained. Still, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and an ambiguous overlap with sibling tools, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that two output types exist (report vs. gap analysis) but never names the mode parameter or its accepted values, and says nothing about what feature_name or implementation_summary should contain.
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 gives a concrete verb ("Gera") and two possible outputs (status report or gap analysis of the workflow), so the general purpose is discernible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings spec-status and validate-gap, which appear to cover exactly those two functions, leaving the agent unsure which tool to pick.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus validate-gap (gap analysis) or spec-status (status), nor any prerequisite or context for invoking it. The agent is left to guess based on the ambiguous description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.