init_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that FAST preserves hard evidence gates while fetching/reviewing fewer candidates and stopping resolved claims early. But it omits side effects of starting a session, the behavior of BALANCED/EXHAUSTIVE modes, and any persistence or idempotency caveats.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. The FAST clarification earns its place without filler or repetition.

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?

Even with an output schema available, this four-parameter initialization tool lacks essential context. The agent cannot safely infer the meanings of contested and max_rounds, the differences between modes, or what state changes occur when a research session is started.

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 must compensate. It only clarifies the mode parameter by identifying FAST as the default and its tradeoff; topic, contested, and max_rounds are left unexplained, and the BALANCED and EXHAUSTIVE modes are not characterized at all.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Start') and the resource ('a research session'), with a specific qualifier about latency/coverage profile. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like plan_research and get_research_state, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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 that this tool is the entry point for a research session, and the FAST default gives some call-time guidance. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrast with plan_research or later research-phase tools.

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