start_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the end-to-end actions: resolving ticket, creating branch, fetching README, printing summary. It mentions optional behaviors like transitionName and push, but does not elaborate on all potential side effects (e.g., Jira status changes).

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 concise at around 60 words, but it packs a lot of information into a single paragraph. Some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability without sacrificing 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major functional steps and parameter usage fairly well. It does not describe the output format (summary) in detail, but overall is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the mutual exclusivity of issueKey and query, and implying the role of each parameter in the workflow. It adds meaningful value.

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 resolves a Jira ticket, creates a local branch, fetches the project README, and prints a summary. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., jira_get, git_get_diff) by being an end-to-end workflow.

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 explicit usage examples (e.g., 'make a branch for FOO-123') and explains when to use query vs issueKey. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives explicitly.

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