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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'confirm' and 'proceed', suggesting a state transition or workflow step, but does not clarify if this is a read-only check, a mutation that updates status, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

Given the complexity of a workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'confirmation' entails, the expected outcome, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('session_id' and 'feature_name') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as how they relate to the confirmation process. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a purpose ('Confirm the completion of the design document and proceed to the task planning phase'), which is clear but vague. It uses a verb ('Confirm') and resource ('design document'), but does not specify what 'confirm' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed', making it less specific.

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 after design document completion and before task planning, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Start' implies an initiation action, it doesn't describe what 'starting' entails (e.g., creates a new document, updates a status, triggers notifications), what permissions are needed, or what happens if the phase is already started. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that initiates a phase and provides guidance. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' entails (e.g., format, content, or examples of design documents), what the expected outcome is, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (session_id and feature_name) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as how they relate to the design phase or guidance provided.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('design documentation phase'), and indicates it provides guidance for creating design documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_workflow_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start' that might also initiate phases.

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. With multiple sibling tools that appear to be part of a workflow (e.g., 'spec_coding_requirements_start', 'spec_coding_tasks_start'), there's no indication of sequencing, prerequisites, or exclusions for this design phase initiation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'start the task execution phase' and 'provide guidance,' but fails to specify what 'guidance' entails (e.g., instructions, prompts, or status updates), whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves key behavioral traits undefined, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start the task execution phase') and adds a secondary function ('provide guidance for task execution'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by clarifying the relationship between starting and providing guidance. Overall, it is efficiently sized, though slightly vague.

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?

Given the complexity implied by sibling tools in a workflow context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'guidance' includes, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow (e.g., after which sibling tools it should be used). This makes it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and behavior fully.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter roles, interactions, or implications (e.g., how 'session_id' and 'feature_name' relate to starting execution). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's information.

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 states the tool 'Start[s] the task execution phase and provide[s] guidance for task execution,' which gives a vague purpose. It mentions 'task execution phase' and 'guidance,' but lacks specificity about what resource is being acted upon (e.g., a session, feature, or task) and how it differs from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start.' This makes it unclear if it initiates execution, provides instructions, or both, without clear distinction from related tools.

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. With sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' and 'spec_coding_workflow_start,' there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The input schema hints at usage through optional parameters (e.g., 'task_id' for specifying a task), but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions state transitions ('proceed to the requirements collection phase') but doesn't disclose whether this tool triggers side effects, requires specific permissions, affects session state, or has error conditions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the key actions (confirm, set, proceed). Every element serves a purpose.

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?

Given 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirmation' entails, what happens if confirmation fails, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with the broader workflow system. The description assumes context that isn't documented.

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 100%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (session_id, feature_name, goal_summary). It mentions 'set the feature_name' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Confirm the completion', 'set', 'proceed to') and identifies the resource ('feature goal'). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on goal confirmation rather than design or requirements phases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all workflow-related tools.

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 context by mentioning 'proceed to the requirements collection phase', suggesting this tool is used after goal completion and before requirements gathering. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions compared to other sibling tools like spec_coding_workflow_start.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a state transition ('proceed to the design phase') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens if requirements aren't complete, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's action concisely. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or context. There's no wasted text, earning it a high score for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving phase transitions in a workflow), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirming' entails, what 'proceed' does, or the expected outcome. For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings indicating a multi-step process, more detail is needed to guide proper use.

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 100%, with both parameters (session_id and feature_name) documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to confirming requirements or proceeding to design. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 states the tool's purpose as confirming requirements collection completion and proceeding to design phase, which is clear but vague. It uses the verb 'confirm' and mentions 'requirements collection' and 'design phase', but doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_requirements_start' or 'spec_coding_design_start'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after requirements collection is done), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings such as 'spec_coding_requirements_start' (which might start requirements) or 'spec_coding_design_confirmed' (which confirms design). Without this, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'start' and 'provide guidance', implying an initiating action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what 'guidance' entails (e.g., textual output, structured data), or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence that states the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no waste, but it might benefit from slightly more structure to enhance clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (initiating a phase with guidance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means, the format of output, or how this fits into the broader workflow with siblings. For a tool that likely returns instructional content, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'session_id' and 'feature_name' clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters influence the requirements collection or guidance. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool 'Start[s] the requirements collection phase and provide[s] guidance for requirements gathering', which indicates a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'requirements collection phase' and 'requirements gathering', but doesn't clarify what resource or system this applies to, nor how it distinguishes from siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start'. The purpose is vague rather than tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when in a workflow), or exclusions. With siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_confirmed' and 'spec_coding_design_start', there's no indication of sequencing or differentiation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions confirming completion and proceeding to execution, but lacks details on what this entails—e.g., whether it triggers side effects, requires specific permissions, or changes system state. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that seems to involve workflow transitions.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including brief context. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its content.

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?

Given the complexity of a workflow transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'confirming completion' entails, what happens after proceeding to execution, or any potential outcomes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's role and effects within the sibling toolset.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'session_id' and 'feature_name' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters relate to the confirmation process. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the action ('Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_execute_start', leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for transitioning from planning to execution, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to siblings such as 'spec_coding_design_confirmed' or 'spec_coding_goal_confirmed', offering minimal usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting a phase and providing guidance, but doesn't clarify what 'guidance' entails (e.g., structured output, prompts, or instructions), whether this initiates a state change, or any side effects like authentication needs or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the workflow context, but it earns its place by being direct and clear.

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?

Given the complexity implied by sibling tools in a multi-phase workflow, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' looks like, how this tool interacts with others (e.g., 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed'), or the expected behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('session_id' and 'feature_name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Start the task planning phase') and the outcome ('provide guidance for creating the task list'), which gives a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_workflow_start', which likely handle different phases of the same workflow.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether other tools must be called first), exclusions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with its siblings, leaving the agent to guess based on naming conventions alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting a workflow and beginning a phase, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, or what happens upon invocation. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the action and phase.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'starting' entails behaviorally, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools. For a tool in a complex sibling set, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no 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 action ('Start') and the target ('specs workflow'), and specifies the initial phase ('goal collection phase'). It distinguishes this as the beginning of a workflow rather than other phases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_requirements_start'.

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 this is the first step in a workflow ('Start'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or context for selection, leaving usage unclear beyond the implied initiation.

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