start_desk_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the loopback-only binding, the default port, that the bookmark URL carries no token, that the sign-in URL is single-use and expires in 10 minutes, that re-calling does not rotate the write token, and the 0600 token file mode. Gaps remain around server lifecycle (how to stop it, whether it survives the session) and failure 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core fact (what the server is and where it binds), then return values, then re-call semantics. 'Token file mode 0600' is terse to the point of being cryptic, a minor deduction.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing exactly what is returned (bookmark URL plus one-time sign-in URL) and their lifetimes. For a zero-required-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient; only lifecycle and shutdown behavior are absent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by describing the default path — calling again without rotate mints a fresh sign-in code while preserving the write token — which clarifies what the parameter actually changes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — an opt-in localhost Kanban server bound to 127.0.0.1 on a fixed port — so an agent immediately knows what is being started. It does not name the closely related sibling (open_desk) or state how it differs, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Opt-in' and 'Static index.html still works without it' imply this is an optional enhancement rather than a required step, and 'Calling again while running mints a new sign-in code' implies repeat calls are safe. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus open_desk, nor of any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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