workflow_start

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses stateful behavior, file inventory, dynamic checklists, pattern scanning, batch operations, and session persistence. No contradictions or omissions.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and examples, but slightly verbose. Information is front-loaded and each section earns its place, though some repetition could be trimmed.

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 complex tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow features, and examples. Missing return value details, but session persistence and progress tracking imply sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; baseline 3. Description adds value by providing workflow type examples and explaining options like bc_version in context (e.g., BC upgrade), enhancing parameter understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool starts a workflow session (specific verb+resource) and lists built-in types with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workflow_batch, workflow_cancel, etc., by focusing on initiation.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., start a code review, error migration) and examples. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but implicitly differentiates from siblings through its initiation role.

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