lgh_serve_start

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

The description transparently communicates that it spawns a background daemon, returns startup output or an error (e.g., port already taken), and implies a persistent side effect. This matches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides sufficient detail for expected behavior.

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 tight and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the core action, its context, and expected outputs. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

It includes when to use the tool, what to expect (startup output or error), and how to verify success (lgh_status). The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the clear narrative of returned information.

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 only parameter, port, is fully described with its default value and purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds the default context, so no ambiguity remains.

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 action (start), the resource (LGH HTTP server), and its purpose (hosts git endpoints). It distinguishes from siblings like lgh_serve_stop and lgh_status by focusing on the startup action.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('before lgh_up or before cloning from LGH') and advises checking lgh_status afterwards to confirm the PID and listen address, providing clear operational context.

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