start_debug_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns an instruction for TDD tasks and that the PR body includes a diagnosis writeup, giving some insight into outputs and workflow. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, error handling, or any side effects, which are essential for a tool that starts processes.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that front-load the core action and follow with output details. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, and the second explains the return behavior and PR inclusion. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (starting a debug process with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and some output hints but misses key behavioral aspects like mutation status, error cases, or interaction with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform the agent about this process-initiating tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'symptom' parameter fully documented as a natural-language bug description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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: 'Start a debug loop from a symptom description.' It specifies the verb ('Start'), resource ('debug loop'), and input trigger ('symptom description'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_loop' or 'advance_loop', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific debug variant.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions the tool initiates a debug loop from a symptom, but offers no explicit when/when-not criteria or alternatives. While it implies usage for bug diagnosis, it doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'start_loop' or specify prerequisites, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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