start_work_on_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions capturing a git baseline and requiring a clean working directory, which are important side effects and preconditions. However, it does not state what happens if the directory is dirty, nor does it mention any return value or further side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. The primary action is stated first, with additional context (git baseline and clean directory requirement) provided in a logical order. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role. It includes a key precondition (clean working directory) and a side effect (git baseline), which are relevant for decision-making. It could be slightly more detailed about error behavior, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The only parameter, taskId, is described as 'Task ID to start working on', which is clear and sufficient. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add extra detail beyond the schema, so it remains at that baseline.

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 action ('Begin working') and the resource ('a task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from listing/getting tasks by implying a state change, which is distinct from the sibling tools.

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 does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_task or complete_task_work, but the phrase 'Begin working' strongly implies it is for initiating work rather than modifying or completing. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the purpose is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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