start_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start a WLAN Pi service' and gives no information about side effects, failure behavior when the service is already running, persistence across reboots, privileges, or whether the call is blocking.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes only the essential parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema available, the description conveys the action and the source of valid parameter values. The main gap is behavioral transparency, but invocation details are sufficiently covered for a simple service-start command.

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% and the only parameter, name, is just a string in the schema. The description adds meaningful guidance by directing the agent to list_allowed_services for valid values, which compensates for the lack of enums or schema-level documentation.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Start a WLAN Pi service.' It is distinguishable from its siblings by the explicit action word 'start,' which contrasts with stop_service and restart_service, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives in the text.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus stop_service, restart_service, or get_service_status. The only usage hint is to use list_allowed_services to find valid names, which is a prerequisite rather than a comparison against alternatives.

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