run_start

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It discloses that it creates a worktree if missing, but does not mention mutability, idempotency, permissions, or any other side effects. 'Start' implies a write operation, but no more details.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the essential action and one notable behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and 4 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'managed' vs 'attached' means, how parameters affect behavior, or what the return value is. Falls far short of providing a complete understanding for an agent.

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 provides no elaboration on the four parameters (task_id, agent_backend, launcher, persona). Parameter names like 'persona' may be unclear, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts a managed or attached run for a task, with a specific action and resource. It also mentions a side effect (creating worktree). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cancel or run_get.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate to use.

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