start_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It outlines a multi-step orchestration (check context → generate specs → estimate effort), which gives a high-level view. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., what files are created or modified), required authorizations, rate limits, or what happens if steps fail. The description is adequate but not rich enough to fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 remarkably concise—just two sentences that immediately state the purpose, the orchestration flow, and the alternative tool. Every word serves a function, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, meaning the description bears a heavy informational load. While it covers the core purpose and flow, it omits important contextual details such as what the tool returns after execution, whether it produces files or side effects, and how to interpret its output. For a complex orchestration tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a description, setting the baseline at 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the overall flow rather than parameter details. Therefore, the description adds no extra value in this dimension.

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's purpose: it handles the complete new feature development flow (check context → generate specs → estimate effort). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_feature' by specifying when the latter should be used instead (for just spec documents). This meets the highest standard of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('当用户需要完整的新功能开发流程时使用') and when not to ('若只需规格文档请用 add_feature'), naming the alternative. This provides clear usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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