spec-tasks

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 at a mutation path ("salva") but never states whether an existing tasks.md is overwritten, whether the operation requires prior approval state, or what permissions are needed — significant gaps for a tool that can write.

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 the resource and the precondition front-loaded, and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 for a two-parameter, no-annotation tool with 0% schema coverage the definition leaves the read-vs-write trigger, parameter meaning, and mutation side effects unexplained. Not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 does not. It implies content maps to tasks.md, but never explains content versus feature_name, nor how feature_name scopes the file path, nor the null default that switches between read and write.

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 states a specific resource (tasks.md) with clear verbs (reads or saves) and a timing condition (after design approval), which orients it against stage-based siblings like spec-design and spec-impl. However, the dual read/write mode is not disambiguated, and no sibling is named as the counterpart to this step.

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?

"Depois da aprovação do design" gives an implicit workflow stage, suggesting it follows spec-approve/spec-design. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative, no statement of when to pass content (save) versus omit it (read), and no mention of the adjacent spec-impl step.

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