start_review_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the service is loopback-only, owned by the run, and does not launch a browser, but it says nothing about port conflicts, idempotency if a server is already running, how long the service lives, or whether stop_review_server is required for cleanup.

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 with no filler; the semicolon clause adds genuinely useful negative information. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema means return values needn't be described, but for a server-lifecycle tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description should cover prerequisites, port-conflict behavior, and the relationship to stop_review_server/get_review_server_status. None of that is present.

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% across three parameters. The description clarifies nothing about run_dir (required), port (default 8765), or workspace_dir (default empty) — only the word "owned" faintly hints that the server is scoped to run_dir. The agent must infer all three from titles alone.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Start and verify ... review service" with the scoping qualifiers "owned" and "loopback". It implicitly separates itself from get_review_server_status and stop_review_server by being the starting action, though it never names those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_review_server_status or prepare_review_workspace, nor any prerequisites (does a run need to exist first?). The only guidance-ish content is the negative note that it does not open a browser, which addresses expectations rather than tool selection.

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