q_plan_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses background execution, immediate return, parallel seats, bias-free starting point, the anti-bias gate, optional role assignment, gemini_model substitution, and expected wall-clock time. It does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, but the behavior is largely transparent.

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 a coherent paragraph with clear sections: execution model, the anti-bias gate, roles, gemini_model, and timing. It is somewhat verbose (e.g., 'structurally bias-free') but every sentence adds useful information and is appropriately front-loaded with the core behavior.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the high-level workflow and two parameters but omits critical invocation details like the meaning of 'cwd', 'task', 'host', 'agents', 'skip_gh', and 'no_context'. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without further documentation.

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 description explains 'roles' (format and defaults) and 'gemini_model' (format and purpose), but ignores the other 7 parameters including required ones like 'task' and 'cwd'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it covers only about 22% of parameters, leaving most ambiguous.

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 starts a q-plan run in the background, returns a job_id immediately, and explains the anti-bias gate. It is distinct from siblings like q_brainstorm_start or q_validate_start by its explicit focus on structural anti-bias and the background execution model.

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?

It gives concrete workflow guidance: start the run, then call q_await with the job_id, and it emphasizes the anti-bias gate as a reason to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with alternative start tools like q_brainstorm_start.

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