start_feature

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

The description states the tool generates specifications and estimates, which implies writing to files (e.g., docs_dir), contradicting the readOnlyHint=true annotation that suggests no state modification. The description does not clarify this inconsistency or disclose other behavioral traits.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys purpose, steps, and differentiation from sibling.

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?

While the description covers purpose and usage, it lacks details on return values, side effects, or how the orchestration interacts with other tools. Given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context on the overall workflow and outcomes.

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?

All 9 parameters have full descriptions in the input schema, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as it neither enhances nor detracts from schema-provided information.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for orchestrating a full new feature development workflow. It uses specific verbs ('使用', '编排') and identifies the resource ('完整的新功能开发流程'). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'add_feature', which is for specification documents only.

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?

Description provides clear when-to-use ('当用户需要完整的新功能开发流程时使用') and when-not-to-use ('若只需规格文档请用 add_feature'). It also outlines the orchestration steps (check context -> generate spec -> estimate), giving context on the expected workflow.

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