workbuddy_session_start

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the asynchronous default (taskId returned immediately, poll status for report) and the blocking alternative. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission implications, or the fact that it initiates a potentially long-running process. The schema mentions permissionMode dangers but the description does not reinforce this.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential behavioral guidance. Every word adds value.

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?

For a session-start tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow aspects (immediate vs blocking, polling). It does not explain the return format beyond taskId, but that is implied. It also does not mention prerequisites like cwd existence, though that is in the schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 71%, above the 50% threshold, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context (poll status, request report) but does not provide extra meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents. The schema already covers backend, permissionMode, and waitForCompletion well.

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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'WorkBuddy session', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send/status/cancel by describing the session initiation behavior.

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?

It provides clear guidance on the two usage modes (default immediate return vs. waitForCompletion=true for blocking) and the associated polling workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use send instead of start), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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