Spec planning checklist

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

The description fully explains the tool's behavior (returns a checklist grouped by categories with questions). No annotations contradict this. It could mention if the output is static or dynamic, but overall transparent.

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 concise sentences: first describes output, second explains usage. No redundant information.

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 fully covers what the tool returns and how to use it. With no parameters or output schema, it provides all necessary information for an agent.

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?

No parameters exist, so description adds no param info; baseline 4 applies. The description's focus on the output is appropriate given zero parameters.

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 returns a planning checklist grouped by specific categories with concrete questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (open_in_draftlytic, render_prd, validate_spec) by focusing on planning before drafting.

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 says 'Use this to interview the user before drafting a spec' and advises not needing to ask every question, providing clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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