spec-status

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 implies a reporting read ('Mostra'), but never confirms it is non-mutating, requires no elevated permissions, or has any side effects, and gives no hint about pagination or freshness of the data.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is more under-specification than disciplined concision.

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. However, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage context, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter feature_name is undocumented. The description does not clarify whether feature_name is an identifier, slug, or display name, nor whether it must match an existing spec created by spec-init.

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 and resource: shows approvals and task progress for a feature. That is clear enough to separate it from validate_spec or spec-approve, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states its scope relative to the other spec-* tools.

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 indication of when to call this versus spec-approve, spec-tasks, or validate_spec. The agent must infer that this is a read-only progress report rather than a state-changing action, which is a real risk given the sibling names.

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