start_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It lists three core behaviors (creates worktree, sets up environment, initializes tracking), but the language is vague—'sets up environment' and 'initializes tracking' lack specifics. It doesn't mention prerequisites, reversibility, or potential impact on existing branches, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and immediately conveys the key steps. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid high-level overview of the workflow and its recommended usage. It doesn't explain the exact output or post-conditions, but the schema and sibling context fill in many gaps, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds contextual context ('full workflow') but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither adds nor detracts from parameter clarity.

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 new feature with full workflow' and explicitly lists the steps involved (creates worktree, sets up environment, initializes tracking). It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_worktree by emphasizing the full workflow and positioning itself as the recommended entry point for development work.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'This is the recommended way to begin any development work.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for starting new work.

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