start_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: persistence across sessions, idempotent start (returns existing URL), and requirement for explicit stop. It lacks details on permissions or side effects, but these are minimal for a start command.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the return value (URL) but not its format. It covers the core functionality and lifetime management, but could elaborate on what 'existing URL' looks like. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward start tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about the parameters (port, storage) beyond what the schema already provides. It neither clarifies defaults nor constraints.

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 the BetterDB monitor as a persistent background process, using specific verb 'Start' and resource 'BetterDB monitor'. It distinguishes from sibling tool stop_monitor by mentioning that the monitor must be stopped explicitly.

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 context: it starts a persistent background process, returns existing URL if already running, and must be stopped explicitly. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the behavior is straightforward and effectively guides usage.

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