start_ralph

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

The description claims the tool generates directories and scripts (write operations), but the annotation 'readOnlyHint' is true, indicating a read-only action. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no details about authorization, rate limits, or consequences are provided beyond the safety defaults mentioned.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('start Ralph Wiggum Loop') and add safety context. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Despite 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description omits post-execution behavior or expected output. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness, as the description's claim of file generation conflicts with the readOnly hint.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating the high-level purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 initiates a Ralph Wiggum Loop development cycle, generating directory structure and scripts with safety defaults. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_bugfix or start_feature by specifying a unique loop development pattern.

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 implies usage when starting a Ralph Wiggum Loop but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider. The sibling list includes many start_* tools, yet no comparison is made.

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