gitlens_start_work

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

The description claims creation (a write operation) but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No further behavioral details are provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with tool name and action, no redundant content.

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?

No output schema provided, and description omits what happens after creation (e.g., branch checkout, return value). The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds little beyond schema. The mention of 'issue' maps to issue_url but no additional semantics.

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 'creates a work based on an issue' and 'create a branch and link it with the issue', specifying the action and resource distinctly from siblings like gitlens_start_review.

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 implies usage when an issue URL is provided, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git_branch, git_checkout) or provide exclusions.

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