Open the Start screen for handing over material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a browser form, returns a URL, rides on the same local HTTP server on 127.0.0.1, and that submitted items are picked up via check_intake. This gives useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'open screen' statement.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The bilingual repetition is mildly redundant but justified by the tool's ja/en audience. Each sentence contributes relevant information such as the server, return value, and workflow linkage.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, where it runs, what it returns, and how the submitted material is subsequently accessed. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already describes both parameters fully with descriptions and defaults, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific verb (open), a specific resource (Start screen), and its purpose: a browser form for handing over a question plus files. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting it returns a URL and rides on the same local server as the dashboard.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to hand over consultation content and files via a browser-based Start screen. It also refers to check_intake as the downstream pickup step, giving workflow context. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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