start_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that sessions are persistent and that an existing session may be reused, which is critical. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., what happens if the path differs from an existing session) or specify security/permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the optional parameter note. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameter, and reuse behavior. It does not describe return values, but in context, this is acceptable. A slightly more detailed note on session id or status upon success 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter vivado_path. The description adds value by stating it is optional and provides an example, clarifying its purpose beyond the schema description. It does not elaborate on defaults or behavior when omitted, but the added context is sufficient.

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 persistent Vivado TCL session with an explicit command example. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Vivado TCL session'), and the sibling tools (run_tcl_command, session_status, stop_session) indicate it is the session initialization tool, distinguishing it effectively.

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 explains when to use the optional vivado_path parameter and mentions session reuse, providing context for typical use. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., if a session is already running from a different path) or compare to alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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