start_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It describes workspace isolation, branch creation/resume behavior, the single-active-workspace constraint, the success/error return contract, and the fact that it never raises an exception.

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 three purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides ordering guidance, idempotency/error behavior, and the return contract. Every sentence contributes operational value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it is nearly complete: return format, failure behavior, workspace semantics, and ordering are all specified. It does not explicitly state how 'target repository' is determined, but in an issue-scoped workflow this is largely inferable from 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% and the schema already describes issue_number as 'The GitHub issue number to start work on.' The description adds extra meaning by showing exactly how issue_number is used in the branch name selfdev/issue-<issue_number>, which helps the agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Begin work on a GitHub issue: clone the target repository into a fresh, isolated per-issue workspace and create... a branch.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that read_file, write_file, run_tests, and submit_pr all operate on the workspace this tool creates.

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?

It explicitly says to call this first, before read_file, write_file, run_tests, or submit_pr, and explains why: those tools operate on the workspace this tool creates. It also warns that calling it again for an already-active issue returns an error instead of clobbering the existing workspace, giving clear when-to and when-not-to conditions.

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