start_work

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

The description discloses key behaviors: ticket resolution, branch creation, README fetch, summary printing, and optional push/transition. Without annotations, it carries the burden, and it covers most major actions, though omits details like error handling or default behaviors.

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: two sentences that front-load the core action and key conditional guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main workflow steps and optional parameters, but could be more detailed about error cases or the exact Jira transitions applied. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, it provides a reasonable overview for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining the relationship between issueKey and query, but otherwise does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: to start working on a Jira ticket end-to-end, including resolving the ticket, creating a local branch, fetching a README, and printing a summary. It distinguishes from sibling tools by combining multiple actions.

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 clear guidance on when to use the issueKey vs query parameters, but does not explicitly exclude use cases for sibling tools like jira_mutate or git_get_context. However, the tool's workflow-oriented purpose is clear.

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