spec-impl

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 hints that the tool prepares context while the agent implements, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, file writes, or whether the operation is read-only or 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. The semicolon-separated second clause adds slight ambiguity but does not bloat the text.

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. Still, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, one required parameter undocumented, and no usage context, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke the 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'tarefas' in passing, which loosely maps to the optional tasks parameter, but it never explains feature_name (the required parameter), nor does it clarify format, expected values, or the relationship between the two 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 says it prepares TDD context for approved tasks, which is more specific than restating the name, and it distinguishes the tool from the agent's subsequent implementation. However, the second clause ('o agente implementa no repositório') blurs the tool's own purpose and does not clearly delimit it from siblings like spec-tasks or prepare_generation_context.

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?

Usage is implied by 'tarefas aprovadas', suggesting this tool should be invoked after approval. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not guidance, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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