Status of a spec-loop feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by noting that completeness is recomputed by validate and alterations by diff against the manifest, clarifying that this tool reports rather than mutates state, but it says nothing about cost, freshness, or failure behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. It loses a point for being an ungrammatical fragment whose parenthetical clauses make it slower to parse than a plain declarative sentence would be.

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 not explaining return values is acceptable, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a read tool with nine siblings, the definition provides no routing guidance and no statement of the actual action, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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%, including the root fallback chain and the accepted forms of the feature identifier, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description mentions 'one spec-loop feature' but adds no syntax or selection detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase listing the fields returned (phase, completeness, pending edits, history) rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says plainly 'report the status of a feature.' It does implicitly distinguish itself from siblings by attributing completeness to validate and alterations to diff, but an agent must infer the actual action.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (validate, diff, phase, features). Usage is only inferable from the read-only, reporting framing of the field list.

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