agy_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async contract (wait_seconds returns status RUNNING while the turn keeps going, collect with agy_wait) and real side effects (notes include denied actions and files AGY changed). It stops short of stating permission requirements, cost, or concurrency limits for concurrent sessions.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable parameter glossary; every line conveys a distinct, actionable fact. No restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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 session-creating tool with an output schema, the description covers initiation, async continuation, defaults, and notable side effects. Remaining minor gaps are error conditions (bad cwd, unknown agent) and any session/concurrency limits, though agy_list_agents and agy_status likely cover some of that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all seven parameters: agent with an example, cwd as an absolute path, message contents, model/effort as optional defaults, schema including the default review shape (verdict, summary, findings, questions_for_claude), and wait_seconds semantics. This adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: 'Open a new AGY review session and send the first message.' The word 'new' plus 'first message' implicitly separates it from agy_resume (existing session) and agy_say (follow-up message), so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear per-parameter usage context (agent must be installed, cwd is where AGY runs, message must include intent and test instructions) and explains the wait_seconds/wait tradeoff with agy_wait. It never explicitly says when to prefer agy_resume or agy_say over this call, which is the one routing gap given seven siblings.

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