skypilot_local_up

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

Annotations give openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, and the description adds two non-obvious behaviors: a hard precondition (API server must be local) and an asynchronous return ('Returns a request_id'). It stops short of disclosing persistence/lifecycle (does the cluster survive, how is it torn down) or any auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key flag, then the precondition and return value. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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 zero-required-parameter setup tool with an output schema, the essentials are mostly present, but the request_id is mentioned without saying it should be polled via the sibling skypilot_get_request, and no lifecycle/cleanup counterpart is referenced. The preconditions and flag semantics are covered.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It explains gpus=True as GPU passthrough (useful beyond the bare boolean default), but 'name' and 'port_start' are left entirely unexplained — no hint that name is a cluster identifier or what port range port_start begins.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a local Kubernetes cluster for SkyPilot.' That is clearly distinct from the cloud-cluster siblings, but the description never names or contrasts with the obvious counterpart skypilot_local_down (teardown) or skypilot_cluster_launch, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Only works when the API server is running locally' is a genuine precondition that constrains when the call can succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over skypilot_cluster_launch, skypilot_ssh_up, or other environment-setup siblings, and no note that skypilot_local_down is the matching cleanup call.

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