create_feature_workflow

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions 'structured workflow' and 'integrated testing' but does not disclose what actions are taken, such as file creation, test execution, or user prompts. The agent has little insight into side effects or required permissions.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could benefit from a second sentence to clarify scope or output.

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 complexity of a workflow tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on workflow steps, return value, or integration with sibling tools. Incomplete for effective use.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains 'task' and 'context' with sub-properties. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Start' and resource 'structured workflow for adding new functionality with integrated testing'. It distinguishes from siblings like tdd_workflow and test_workflow by emphasizing integrated testing, but could be more specific about the unique workflow.

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 versus alternatives. No prerequisites or conditions provided. The user must infer from context.

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