check_spec

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what the validation checks (placeholder, missing sections, etc.) and implying a report output. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the validation scope, and embeds usage timing. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

For a read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, when to use it, and the follow-up action. It could benefit from mentioning the report format or exit behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation. The rich annotations compensate for missing details.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., feature_name pattern, project_root auto-detection). The description reinforces the feature_name path pattern but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb (校验) and resource (功能规格 docs/specs/<feature_name>/requirements|design|tasks.md), and lists exact validation checks (placeholder detection, missing sections, FR/acceptance criteria, FR coverage). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on coding, review, or memory tasks.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (写完规格后、进入实现前) and the rerun loop (未通过按报告补全后重跑). It provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The when-to-use is strong enough for a 4.

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