knowl_task_start

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool 'Returns relevant memory and a taskId', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether a session is created, whether the loop persists, or what happens on repeated calls. With annotations covering the main safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the exclusion ('Never use for a hook-owned session') is placed at the end as a sharp warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It states the return value (memory + taskId) and the key usage constraint. The only gap is that it doesn't explain what a 'manual work loop' is or how it relates to the sibling lifecycle tools, but that's a minor omission given the schema and annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a small semantic detail: 'query' defaults to the task title, which is not in the schema. That is a genuine addition, but it's minor. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Start') and resource ('one manual work loop') and adds a clear qualifier: for multi-command or resumable work when verified lifecycle hooks are unavailable. It distinguishes itself from hook-owned sessions, though it doesn't name a specific sibling alternative. The phrase 'manual work loop' is somewhat jargon-heavy but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives an explicit condition for use ('when verified lifecycle hooks are unavailable') and a strong exclusion ('Never use for a hook-owned session'). It doesn't name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the when/when-not guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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