start_working

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions showing a working indicator but doesn't disclose side effects, whether repeated calls reset the indicator, or if the 'activity' parameter alters behavior. Minimal transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and clear. However, it could be improved by adding a brief note on the parameter. It is concise but overly sparse.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should cover the parameter's role. It fails to do so, leaving a gap for the agent on how to properly invoke the tool with or without the parameter.

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?

The single parameter 'activity' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent gets no meaning for this parameter beyond its type (string).

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: to tell the UI that the user started acting on feedback, which shows a working indicator. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'finish_working' (stops indicator) and 'work_on_thread' (actual work on a thread).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'start_working' instead of 'work_on_thread' or other notification tools. The agent has to infer the context.

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