start_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (rejection if a record is in progress), which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other consequences like side effects, permissions, or what happens on success, leaving gaps.

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 short sentences that front-load the primary action and a critical rejection condition. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits parameter details and return behavior. While it states the core action and rejection, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly in all cases.

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 only 33% (only 'tags' has a description), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving parameters like task_id and descripcion without added meaning.

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 starts a timer on a task, with a specific rejection condition that distinguishes it from siblings like stop_timesheet or log_time. The verb 'inicia' and resource 'tarea' are specific, and the rejection behavior adds further distinction.

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 clear context that this tool is used to start a timer and explicitly mentions it rejects if a record is in progress, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the rejection condition, so it falls 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.