Start slicing

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

The description discloses the return state ('started / already_valid / conflict') and implies idempotency with 'already_valid', which is useful. However, it does not define what 'conflict' means, whether the operation is asynchronous, or any side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are neutral and provide no additional safety context.

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, concise sentence that states the action and the possible return values without redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and basic return states. However, it lacks explanation of the return values' meanings ('already_valid' vs 'conflict') and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling slice_and_wait, which is a notable gap given the related tools.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, there is no parameter detail to convey. The description adds the 'current plate' context, which clarifies the implicit scope. Since schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), the baseline of 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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 'Start slicing the current plate' clearly states the verb 'start' and the resource 'slicing the current plate', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_slice_status (view status) and cancel_slice (abort), as well as slice_and_wait (which likely waits for completion).

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 by stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like slice_and_wait or apply_and_slice. There is no exclusion or guidance about prerequisites, so the agent must infer from context and sibling names.

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