cfg_start_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it describes the input/output flow, it does not clarify whether starting a session has side effects (e.g., state creation), auth requirements, or rate limits. It also fails to mention if the tool is read-only or destructive, which is critical for agent decision-making.

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 concise with a few sentences, clearly structured with a brief summary and a parameter section. It avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter list could be more integrated. Overall, it is efficient.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the input, output elements, and the session-starting purpose. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description adds value for the single parameter.

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?

The schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must document it. It adds value by specifying that 'description' is a 'natural-language description of the deployment the user wants', which is more informative than the schema's title 'Description'. This aids the agent in proper use.

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 states 'Start an interactive m4 config-building session' with a clear verb and resource. It explains the input (NL description) and output (scenario, parameters, next-step). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cfg_edit or cfg_generate by emphasizing the interactive session start, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 when the user wants to start a config session from natural language. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the many cfg_* siblings. It lacks exclusions or context for optimal use.

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