st.runtime.control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully identifies start/stop/restart as mutating and requires confirm:true, while implicitly treating status as non-mutating. Still, it does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, which matters for a runtime control 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the resource and action set, followed by a concise safety condition. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 simple two-parameter command dispatcher, the description covers the required action and the confirm requirement. It does not describe return values or the operational consequences of start/stop/restart, but the low complexity and explicit enum make it largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 enumerates the possible action values and gives confirm semantic weight by stating that mutating actions require confirm:true. This goes beyond the raw enum and boolean schema, though it does not explain each action's full effect.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run configured SillyTavern runtime status/start/stop/restart commands.' The action enum is explicitly enumerated, making the tool's scope obvious. It is distinguishable from the sibling list as the only runtime-control tool, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 for runtime status, start, stop, and restart commands, and adds a prerequisite: 'Mutating actions require confirm: true.' However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over related siblings, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use or alternative routing guidance.

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