create_devin_session

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 reveals that the tool posts to Slack automatically and requires language consistency, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps for a creation tool.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides implementation guidance. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary repetition, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the creation and Slack posting behavior. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (session ID, status, etc.), error conditions, or dependencies, making it incomplete for a creation tool with multiple parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'prompt' should be structured or when to use 'machine_snapshot_id'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 creates a new Devin session for code development and posts the task to Slack, providing a specific verb ('create') and resource ('Devin session'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_devin_session' or 'list_devin_sessions' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'send_message_to_session'.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: it's the 'recommended approach' for creating sessions that automatically post to Slack as @Devin mentions. It includes guidance on language consistency, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like using other session tools without Slack integration.

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