Identify blocked features and the specific dependencies or decisions causing the wait. Use this to unblock progress by understanding what each feature is waiting on.
What is waiting, and on what. The mirror of feature_ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| goal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the conceptual output (waiting items and blockers) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it selects results, what response shape to expect, or any dependencies or side effects.
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 extremely short and avoids wasted words. The mirror framing is an efficient orientation, though the fragment style sacrifices clarity slightly; a slightly more explicit phrasing would make it ideal.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: return format, filtering behavior, required context, and relationship to related tools like feature_unblocked are not addressed. For a tool with two optional parameters in a large sibling set, this is not enough context for confident invocation.
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?
The schema already describes cwd, but the goal parameter has no description. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter and does not explain how goal or cwd influence the blocked list, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 communicates that this tool reports blocked work and the blocking dependency ('What is waiting, and on what'). 'The mirror of feature_ready' provides sibling differentiation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it stops just short of a top score.
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 'mirror of feature_ready' implies this tool is the inverse of feature_ready and should be chosen when the ready-view is not what is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like feature_unblocked or gate tools, so usage guidance is only 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.