raxol_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions headless mode, return value (session ID), and the accepted input forms (module or path). It does not detail error handling or lifecycle behavior, but the core behaviors are transparent enough for a start operation.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes well-chosen examples. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. The structure—overview, acceptance criteria, return value, examples—makes it easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: session ID return, input options, and example configurations. It omits error behavior and session lifecycle, but the given information is sufficient for basic usage. More details on mutual exclusion enforcement could improve completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds examples but introduces a minor inconsistency by calling the module an 'atom' while the schema specifies a string. It clarifies mutual exclusivity and defaults implicitly through examples, but does not add significant meaning 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 'Starts a headless Raxol session' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like raxol_stop or raxol_list by focusing on the initiation action. The provided examples further clarify the function's scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (to start a session) and provides usage examples with module or path. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the naming and examples make the intended context clear. Slight gap in not stating when not to use (e.g., when a session already exists).

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