Start a new app project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the workflow sequence and return value, giving the agent a clear idea of what happens. It does not mention side effects (e.g., persistence) but the 'Begin' verb implies a creating action, which is sufficient for this context.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes necessary context (workflow stages, return value) without fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and workflow. It is slightly thin on what to do after the first step, but since sibling tools like get_next_questions exist, this is sufficient for an initial tool. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., name and description required) but the schema covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds a note to provide the user's description 'verbatim', which reinforces the intent of the `description` parameter but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Begin the App Factory workflow') and the resource ('for a new app'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enhance_prompt or get_next_questions by positioning it as the entry point. It also specifies the return value (project id and first step), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 stating it begins the workflow for a new app, which clarifies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given it is the workflow start, that is a minor gap. The mention of the workflow stages provides additional context.

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