start_gui

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the GUI enables (uploading documents, editing entities, anonymizing/deanonymizing), which adds useful context beyond basic launching. However, it doesn't cover critical behaviors like whether this is a blocking/non-blocking call, error handling, or resource implications (e.g., memory usage). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool that starts a GUI process.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by GUI capabilities, and then parameter/return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though the Args/Returns sections could be more integrated into the flow. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently written.

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 (launching a GUI with process management), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, GUI features, parameter semantics, and return values (with an output schema present, so return details aren't needed in the description). However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like how to stop the GUI or interaction with sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'port: Port pro Streamlit server (výchozí 8501)' explains that 'port' is for the Streamlit server with a default value. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines type and default without description), this compensates well. However, it doesn't detail port constraints (e.g., valid ranges) or conflicts, keeping it from a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Spustí Streamlit GUI na localhostu pro vizuální revizi entit' (Launches a Streamlit GUI on localhost for visual review of entities). It specifies the verb (launch), resource (Streamlit GUI), and high-level functionality (visual entity review). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_status, which might also provide status information about running processes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like anonymize_file or deanonymize, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must be uploaded first) or typical workflows. The only implicit context is for 'vizuální revizi entit' (visual review of entities), but this lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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