start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the name: it snapshots pre-existing tests and returns memory pointers/lessons plus a run budget, which hints at session lifecycle and side effects. It stops short of stating whether state is persisted, what preconditions must hold, or what happens if called twice.

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 compact sentences lead with the action and add only operational facts, with no filler. The phrase "memory pointers/lessons" is slightly opaque and mildly compressed, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

With 10 parameters, only 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more. It never explains the required goal/acceptance contract or what the returned "run budget" means, leaving an agent to infer how to shape the call at the start of every task session.

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 50%, the baseline case. "Run budget" loosely maps to max_runs/max_after_green/max_fail_streak, but the description leaves title, goal, acceptance, domain, allow_paths, and query unexplained and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Start a coding task") and adds the mechanics: snapshotting pre-existing tests, returning memory pointers/lessons, and a run budget. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling such as run or checkpoint, so differentiation relies on inference from "Call once per task."

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?

"Call once per task" gives a usage constraint that implicitly separates it from the per-run sibling 'run', which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that project root is only needed once per session), and no routing advice toward report, checkpoint, or guard.

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