air_start_assessment

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds key behaviors: credit consumption, pipeline dispatch, auth requirement, and return value. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. However, it does not mention idempotency or failure handling.

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?

Three short sentences, each delivering distinct value: purpose, side effects/cost, auth/return. No redundant or vague language.

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 description covers key aspects but omits important context: the async nature of the pipeline, that air_wait_for_assessment should be used afterward, and the source of projectPid (from air_list_projects/air_get_project). Given the moderate parameter count and lack of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds source context for artifactPids and purpose for name, but the projectPid parameter is left unexplained. The tool description does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 it starts a risk assessment on a project, with specifics like consuming credits and dispatching a pipeline. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like air_run_assessment_from_file or air_run_full_assessment_pipeline.

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 indicates a required permission (assessments:write) but provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. It implies using air_list_artifacts first but does not state prerequisites or the proper sequence.

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