work_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It details the workflow (clone, fix, quality gates, PR), immediate return of run_id, background execution, and how to poll for progress. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: first sentence explains the action, second describes return behavior, third instructs on monitoring. No unnecessary words.

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 an output schema (implied by context signals) and the description mentions the return value (run_id). It covers the complete workflow and expected behavior for a background dev run tool.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, restating that repo is a 'crunchtools repo name' and issue is a 'GitHub issue number'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action (start a dev run), the resources (repo and issue), and the steps (clone, fix, quality gates, PR). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'promote' and 'status' by mentioning polling status separately.

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 when to use: to start a new dev run for a given repo and issue. It also suggests using status(run_id) to monitor progress, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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