qa_session_start

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions creating a file; it does not disclose what happens if the file already exists, whether workspace/directory is created, or any return/error handling behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a major gap.

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?

Single sentence with an embedded target file path and condition; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple and the description is adequate for creating a file, but the lack of an output schema, annotations, and a note about the behavior of the parser/existing files makes the context less exhaustive.

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?

Input schema coverage is only ~33% (1 of 3 properties has a description). The description adds no real meaning for 'slug' or 'task_summary' beyond the schema; renaming the default text would help.

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 it creates a task-specific markdown session file (adhd/sessions/YYYY-MM-DD-slug.md) and ties it to starting Q&A for a task. This is distinct from sibling append/readiness/footer tools, though no alternatives are explicitly named.

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?

Description gives a when-to-use context ('when starting Q&A for a task') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or what sibling tools (e.g., qa_session_append) should be used instead.

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