start_feature

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. It tells the caller that tracking starts and that project_root is required, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, what data is stored, or what happens if tracking already exists.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler, but brevity results in significant under-specification. It is minimal rather than efficiently complete.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, two sentences are grossly insufficient. The agent cannot confidently determine how to populate the scope arrays, what success_conditions should contain, or what outcome to expect after calling the tool.

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 0%, and the description explains only project_root. The remaining six parameters, including the important user_owned_scope and ai_allowed_scope arrays, are not semantically clarified, leaving an agent without guidance for filling them correctly.

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 ('start') and resource ('new feature/task learning tracking'), so an agent can tell the tool initializes tracking. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like record_decision or finish_feature, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only states a calling requirement (project_root must be passed explicitly) and gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as record_decision, finish_feature, or get_learning_history. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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