Run Specification Analysis

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

Annotations are mostly false, so the description must add behavioral context. It discloses that the tool reads files, generates a file (ANALYSIS.md), and returns a gate decision, which is clear. It does not contradict annotations (e.g., destructiveHint false is consistent with generating a non-destructive file). The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the output and side effect.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, actions, and output. No redundant words or fluff; every clause contributes to understanding.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description explains the return value (gate decision) and the file generated (ANALYSIS.md), though it does not detail the traceability matrix or coverage report content. Still, it is fairly complete given the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., spec_dir path, feature_number pattern, force overwrite).

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?

Description clearly states it reads spec files, generates ANALYSIS.md with traceability matrix and coverage report, and returns a gate decision. The verb 'reads', 'generates', and 'returns' are specific to the resource (spec files, ANALYSIS.md, gate decision), and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like sdd_check_sync or sdd_validate_ears.

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 the tool is used for analysis and gate decision, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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