agy_start

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the session runs in the background and returns a status and job_id. It does not mention side effects like file system changes, permissions, or rate limits, but for a 'start' tool the core behavior is reasonably conveyed. Lacks depth expected for a 14-parameter tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded, zero fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the return value and next steps. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (per context), the tool is complex with 14 parameters and rich options (modes, sandbox, workflows). The description only covers the basic launch-and-poll flow, offering almost no guidance on parameter selection, which is essential for correct usage in varied situations.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain any of the 14 parameters (PROMPT, mode, backend, sandbox, allow_write, etc.). The only mention of job_id refers to the return value, not the input parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about all 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's action: 'Start an agy session in the background.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, and the mention of returning a job_id to poll distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_status and agy_cancel. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: this tool is for launching a background session and then polling it via agy_status/agy_read/agy_cancel. It implies usage for asynchronous workflows and names the related tools. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'agy' for interactive sessions.

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