Start agy job

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the openWorldHint annotation: it returns job_id immediately, never blocks, and includes policy_summary and blockers[] in the response. It also explains that dry_run avoids spawning and quota usage. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's execution and side effects.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, behavior, and dry_run alternative. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any filler or repetition.

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 (17 parameters, no output schema), the description provides crucial return-value context (job_id, policy_summary, blockers[]) that would otherwise be unknown. It also clarifies the non-blocking nature and cost behavior, covering the main aspects an agent needs for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds general context about the job start flow but does not elaborate on the undocumented parameters (e.g., mode, model, requested_by, parent_task_id). It does not significantly augment the schema descriptions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Begin a new agy job.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by noting immediate return and non-blocking behavior, and it contrasts with dry_run. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use dry_run versus actually starting a job, including the cost/quota implication. It implies the primary use case is starting a new job, but it does not explicitly contrast with continuing via sibling tools like agy_send or when to use session_id. Still, it provides sufficient context for typical invocation.

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