fmod_system_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is blocking and returns a result object, but does not detail side effects, timeout behavior, permissions, or error handling.

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 concise sentences plus a metadata tag. Every sentence adds value: first describes the action and options, second describes the return object. No redundancy.

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 process execution tool, the description covers the basic inputs and outputs. However, it lacks details on safety, error cases, and environment handling. Given no output schema, the return structure is somewhat described but types are missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes processOptions as an object with { workingDir, args, timeout (milliseconds) }, adding structure beyond the vague schema type. However, pathToExecutable is not elaborated beyond its name.

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 verb 'runs' and the resource 'external process', specifies the options object and return object, and explicitly notes it is 'blocking', distinguishing it from the async sibling 'fmod_system_startAsync'.

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 usage with 'blocking' but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like the async version. No when-not or alternative tool is mentioned.

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