Clarify Requirements

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, and description confirms it only reads and returns questions. It adds 'up to 5' limit and targeting ambiguity, which is helpful but minimal beyond 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?

One sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with action and output. Very concise and clear, though could include brief usage hint without harming conciseness.

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 simple tool with full schema descriptions and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It could mention no side effects, but annotations already cover idempotency.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 reads SPECIFICATION.md and returns disambiguation questions. It uniquely targets ambiguous or incomplete requirements, distinguishing it from siblings like sdd_figma_to_spec or sdd_generate_docs.

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 implies usage for clarifying ambiguous requirements but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other spec stages, but no direct alternative is mentioned.

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