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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a task starts. It does not say whether the task runs asynchronously, whether a task ID is returned, what side effects occur in the workspace, or how the result can be obtained afterward.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Since the input schema already documents all parameters and enums, keeping the description short is appropriate.

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 tool that starts an external coding-agent task and has no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as return behavior, async execution, how to reference the started task later, and the need for repository/agent aliases to be configured beforehand.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only loosely echoes the 'repository workspace' concept without clarifying alias configuration or relationships between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Starts') and a concrete resource ('coding-agent task in a configured repository workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_task, continue_task, get_task, and get_diff, since 'start' signals a new task rather than a status or follow-up operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites such as listing agents/repositories first, nor does it clarify that this tool is for new tasks while continue_task is for resuming existing ones. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the verb 'Starts'.

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