herdr_owned_reviewer_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors (dedicated no-focus tab, lease persistence, identity verification, no split, no arbitrary commands), but doesn't mention side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the listed parameters. It adds some transparency but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action and key constraints. It could be slightly more structured but is concise and readable.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, the lease lifecycle, what 'verify identity' entails, or expected results. An agent would struggle to correctly supply all parameters and anticipate side effects.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., controller_id, lease, fence token, purpose, parent_pane_id, cwd, name, kind). The description only says 'start one supported reviewer' without mapping 'kind' or clarifying others, leaving agents to guess from names.

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 specific action (create a dedicated no-focus tab and start a reviewer), names the resource (reviewer), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by specifying it never splits the controller tab and rejects arbitrary shell commands. It effectively distinguishes from worker_start and other 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 implies when to use it (when starting a reviewer) and provides exclusions (no shell commands, no splitting). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like herdr_owned_worker_start or state conditions for choosing between them, so some inference is required.

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