aso_run

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. 'Start' implies a state-changing operation that likely writes skeleton files, but the description never states side effects, whether it requires prior setup, or whether it is idempotent. The only behavioral hint is that it is mandatory and emits instructions.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, and the mandatory status plus outputs are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse for a stage-entry tool.

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 output schema covers return values, so those need not be described. But with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no explanation of side effects or ordering against sibling ASO tools, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent invoking a stage-start operation.

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?

There is one required parameter, app_dir, and schema description coverage is 0%, so neither the schema nor the description explains it. The description adds no meaning about what app_dir should point to (repo root, app folder) or its expected format.

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 verb ('Start') and a resource ('the ASO stage') and mentions the outputs (skeleton + skill instructions). However, 'start the ASO stage' is vague and does not distinguish this from sibling ASO tools such as aso_scaffold_outputs, aso_validate_metadata, or aso_complete, so an agent cannot easily tell which ASO entry point to pick.

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?

It labels itself a 'mandatory step', which implies it should be run at the beginning of the ASO flow. It names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites relative to the many other aso_* siblings.

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