start_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: without starting a session, ShadowGit creates fragmented auto-commits. This is valuable context beyond the tool's name, though it does not cover other aspects like authentication or side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The critical warning is emphasized in caps, making it highly scannable without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it and the consequence of not doing so. It does not explain internal session mechanics, but that is unnecessary given the schema and sibling tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Repository name' and 'What you plan to do in this session'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a work session.' It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the prerequisite role ('MUST be called BEFORE making any changes') and the consequence of skipping it, which sets it apart from end_session and git_command.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use guideline: 'MUST be called BEFORE making any changes.' It also explains the negative outcome of not using it (fragmented auto-commits), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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