workspace_plan_starter_project

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

The description discloses one important behavioral trait: the tool does not write files. However, with no annotations at all, it should also clarify effects, output, or side-effects; it does not. There is also potential ambiguity around the create_queue/create_session parameters, which sound like state-changing actions but are not reconciled with the no-write claim.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key no-write constraint is front-loaded. However, for a tool with nine parameters and no schema descriptions, this is more under-specification than appropriately concise: it omits essential context.

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 high complexity (nine parameters, three required), zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves nearly everything undisclosed. It does not explain what a plan looks like, what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or what 'Starter run' means, so it is far from complete.

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 meaning for any of the nine parameters. Nothing explains workspace_path, artifact_dir, papers, focus, project_title, max_candidates, or target_result_id, so the agent must guess at how to populate them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and identifies a distinct resource/action ('a Workspace Starter run'). The qualifier 'without writing files' adds useful scope and distinguishes this from file-writing operations, though the term 'Workspace Starter run' is domain jargon and not expanded.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'without writing files' implies a dry-run/planning context, but the description does not name sibling tools or state when this tool should be preferred over them, leaving usage selection to inference.

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