start_backend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses the bound port and a hard prerequisite, but says nothing about whether the call blocks on a long-running server, how it behaves if the backend is already running, or how success is signalled. Those are the traits an agent most needs before invoking a server-start tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, the identity of the action front-loaded and the prerequisite following immediately. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema the description covers purpose and prerequisite adequately, but omits what the agent should do after starting (e.g. doctor, market_test) and whether the call returns immediately or holds the session. Those gaps matter for a backend-lifecycle 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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the port mention is scope rather than parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Start the MarketMirror backend") and pins the concrete detail of port 5001, so an agent knows exactly which process is launched. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like start_live, provider_setup, or quickstart, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: one of four provider configurations must exist first (API-key, ChatGPT sign-in, local CLI gateway, local-model provider), which tells the agent the correct ordering of calls. It offers no exclusions or explicit routing to siblings, so it stops at clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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