start_task

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Somente leitura' (read-only), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no relevant knowledge exists, potential failure modes, or whether it modifies state in any way beyond the read-only claim.

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 compact—three sentences in Portuguese—and front-loaded with the most critical instruction (call before starting any task). Every sentence adds value: the timing instruction, the output description, and the read-only note. No wasted 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 a single required parameter and an output schema present, which lowers the burden on the description for explaining return values. The description covers the tool's core behavior adequately for its simplicity. However, given 0% schema coverage, it would benefit from elaborating on what the 'task_description' parameter should contain, and the relationship to sibling tools like 'remember' and 'context' is not clarified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. While the description explains the overall tool behavior well, it doesn't specifically describe what the 'task_description' parameter should contain (e.g., format, level of detail, whether it's a free-form description or a specific format). With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden and only partially addresses the parameter's intended usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Chame ANTES de comecar qualquer tarefa neste projeto' (call BEFORE starting any task in this project), and explains what it does—returns accumulated knowledge relevant to the task including project rules, decisions, preferences, and conventions. While clear and specific, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools like 'context', 'search', or 'remember', which could overlap in function.

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 explicit usage context: it should be called BEFORE starting any task. 'Chame ANTES de comecar qualquer tarefa' is a clear temporal guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'context', nor does it name specific sibling alternatives for exclusion.

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