start_config_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (starts config page, no SSH) but omits side effects, idempotency, or conflicts. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 front-loads the action and key distinction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, fitting the scope of a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, the description covers the main purpose and contrast. However, it omits the port parameter, which is relevant for usage. Overall, minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 0%, yet the description fails to explain the port parameter. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation; the description adds no value beyond the schema for the parameter, leaving its purpose and format unspecified.

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 clearly states the tool starts only the local HTML configuration page, and distinguishes it from SSH profile tools by explicitly noting it does not require or start an SSH profile. This differentiates it from siblings like start_bridge.

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 when to use (want config page without SSH) and when not (need SSH profile). It contrasts with the implied alternative of starting an SSH profile, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide detailed usage context.

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