start_break

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

A detailed 'Behavioral Transparency' section exists but describes a read-only tool, contradicting the action of starting a timer. Side effects and idempotency claims are false for a timer start, making the transparency misleading despite its depth.

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 overly long with redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' repeat similar points). It lacks focus and wastes space on irrelevant details for a timer start tool.

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 description fails to explain the core functionality: how starting a break timer works, how to end it, or its relationship to focus sessions. Despite context signals indicating an output schema, its content is unknown, and the description does not compensate.

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?

Parameter descriptions are generic and unhelpful, e.g., 'The break type to analyze or process.' With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain valid values, meaning of custom_minutes, or api_key usage. No enumeration or format hints.

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 initially states 'Start a break timer' but then extensively describes a read-only analysis/classification tool, creating a contradiction. The verb 'start' implies state mutation, yet the behavior claims idempotence and statelessness.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are present but refer to analysis/classification, not break timer initiation. No guidance is given on how this tool differs from siblings like start_focus.

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