server_warmup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses intent (pre-warming subsystems to avoid transient failures), which implies a non-destructive setup operation. It does not state cost, likely duration, idempotency, or whether it blocks, so transparency is only partial for a no-annotation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its benefit with zero wasted words. Perfectly sized for the tool's scope.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimal. It conveys purpose adequately but omits operational context such as whether the call blocks, how long it may take, and how it relates to refresh_cache/cache_status, leaving the agent with gaps for a setup operation.

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 100%, so all four parameters (instance_id, build_caches, init_hexrays, wait_auto_analysis) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (warm up) and resource (IDA subsystems) plus the benefit (reduce first-call latency and transient failures). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like refresh_cache, cache_status, and server_health by describing pre-initialization. However, it does not name or route against any specific alternative sibling.

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 stated benefit ('reduce first-call latency') implies usage before a first real operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to sibling tools like refresh_cache or server_health. Usage is left to inference.

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