ct_start

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It labels the tool as a write operation ('[WRITE]'), explains the dry_run preview mode, node auto-location, and the inverse relationship. No mention of permissions or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 very concise: a one-line summary, a usage note, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and return value.

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, no annotations), the description covers all parameters, the return value (UPID), and references a companion tool (ct_list). It is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning for all four parameters: vmid is numeric and links to ct_list, dry_run previews, target comes from config, and node can be omitted. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('Start an LXC container'), the resource type, and the return value ('Returns the task UPID'). It also explicitly names the inverse operation ('ct_stop'), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the dry_run parameter and the behavior of node auto-location. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, it references the inverse operation and associated tools like ct_list, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide.

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