check_spec

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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds details about what is checked (placeholders, missing sections, etc.) and that it produces a report. No contradictions; the description complements annotations well.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. First sentence defines action and scope, second sentence gives usage flow and remediation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, checks, timing, and follow-up actions. It implies output (a report) but doesn't detail the return format. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds the file path pattern (docs/specs/<feature_name>/requirements|design|tasks.md) and mentions the specific files, which enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool checks completeness of functional specs under docs/specs/, listing specific checks (placeholders, missing sections, FR/acceptance criteria, coverage matrix). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_feature and code_review by focusing on spec integrity before implementation.

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?

The description explicitly says when to call (after writing specs, before implementation) and what to do if it fails (fix and rerun). While it doesn't list when not to use, the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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