start_feature

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

The description implies the tool generates spec documents (编排：生成规格) and outputs to a docs directory, which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation that suggests the tool makes no persistent changes. It also fails to disclose file creation, required permissions, or reversibility. The contradiction makes this score 1.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the orchestration flow, then the alternative. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, orchestration workflow), the high-level flow is provided but key behavior is missing: what the tool actually returns, that it likely writes spec files to docs_dir, and how optional parameters (e.g., requirements_mode, loop_* settings) affect the process. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema covers 100% of the 11 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add additional explanation beyond the orchestration steps, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 tool orchestrates a full new-feature development flow with explicit steps (check context → generate spec → estimate workload), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling add_feature for spec-only needs. This is a specific verb+resource+process description that differentiates from similar 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 gives an explicit when-to-use ('when the user needs a complete new feature development process') and an explicit alternative for a related case ('if only need a spec document, use add_feature'). This constitutes a clear when/when-not/alternative pairing, exceeding the 'clear context' bar.

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