sdd-spec-impl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'record progress' and fails to mention side effects, revision-checking behavior via expectedRevision, evidence requirements for certain actions, or potential error conditions. The description gives no detail about what happens when the tool is invoked, making it insufficient for safe use.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, conditional requirements), this length is under-sized and not appropriately informative for the task of selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 a complex schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits essential context such as the meaning of action values, the evidence object's purpose, expectedRevision semantics, and where this tool fits in the SDD workflow. It is far from complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 14% (only featureName has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information. While the schema's action enum and property names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify evidence, expectedRevision, blocker, or affectedArtifacts. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks semantic richness.

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 identifies the tool as recording progress on implementation tasks, with 'record' as a specific verb and 'governed implementation task progress' as the resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like sdd-implement and sdd-status, though it does not mention the specific action types (start, record-red, record-green, complete, block) defined in the schema, leaving 'governed' somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sdd-implement, sdd-tasks, or sdd-status. It does not include any context about the SDD workflow, prerequisites, or situations that warrant recording red/green/complete/block actions.

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