start_process

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It explains parameters like mode (pty/pipe) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., resource consumption, cleanup) or authorization needs. Moderate transparency.

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 well-structured as a docstring with bullet points for each parameter, and the first line clearly states the purpose. It is moderately sized with no redundant sentences, though minor trimming is possible.

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?

Despite covering all parameters, the description lacks detail on the return value ('session info' is vague) and does not explain how to subsequently interact with the process using sibling tools. Given absent output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

All 9 parameters are explicitly described in the description, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default values. For example, mode explains 'I/O mode — 'pty' (pseudo-terminal) or 'pipe'.' and timeout is 'Process startup timeout in seconds.'

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 'Start an interactive process and return its session info,' which is a specific action on a distinct resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that query sessions, read output, or send input.

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 for starting a process but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_session_info or send_input. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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