bitpull_start_app

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the precondition (must be installed, must not already be running). It omits what happens on partial startup, whether the call blocks until ready, and what errors surface when the precondition fails.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resources, with the usage condition as a compact modifier. No filler, though it is arguably terse enough to leave gaps noted 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials of what it does and when. It still leaves open what the call returns or how failures (not installed, already running) are reported, which matters for an agent deciding whether to retry.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter — it does name Docker and Ollama, matching the enum values. But the enum is already self-explanatory in the schema, so little additional meaning (format, defaults, effect per value) is added.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Start") with concrete resources (Docker, Ollama from the enum), so an agent knows this initiates a service. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as bitpull_start_group, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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?

It gives an implied precondition — start only 'when installed but not running' — which tells the agent the tool is conditional on state. However, it does not say what to do if the app is not installed, nor point to any alternative (e.g., bitpull_install) for that case.

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