expo.start

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. While 'Start' implies an action that initiates a server, it doesn't describe what happens after starting (e.g., server runs in background, outputs logs, requires manual stop), potential side effects, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely has ongoing effects.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of starting a development server (which likely has behavioral nuances and ongoing effects), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to verify success, or any operational details, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'clearCache' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured data, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 the action ('Start') and the target resource ('Expo/Metro development server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'expo.status' or 'expo.stop', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'expo.reload' or 'expo.stop', nor does it mention prerequisites or appropriate contexts. It merely states what the tool does without indicating when it should be invoked.

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