spec-init

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 does disclose the concrete side effect of creating a requirements.md draft, which is useful, but it says nothing about prerequisites, whether existing files are overwritten, or where the draft is written.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than tight information design.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and no usage context, the definition is too thin for a tool that mutates the filesystem and anchors a multi-step spec workflow.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. 'feature' loosely gestures at feature_name, but project_description (the required parameter) is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess its expected content and scope.

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 verb (initializes) and resource (a feature), plus the concrete artifact produced (requirements.md draft). It is clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as spec-requirements, which likely also touches requirements.md.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (spec-requirements, prepare_generation_context). An agent must infer that this is the entry point of the spec workflow purely from the name.

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