Start log-probe ingestion server

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

Without annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses that the call starts a server and lazily opens SQLite storage, giving insight into side effects. However, it does not address lifecycle details like idempotency, blocking behavior, port conflicts, or shutdown obligations, so it is good but not comprehensive.

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 two tight sentences. The first identifies the action and target; the second adds a meaningful side effect. No waste, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main action, prerequisite, and storage side effect. However, it does not address what the tool returns (especially when port is auto-assigned) or how to discover the chosen port, and it omits lifecycle guidance (e.g., use probe_server_stop to shut down). Given no output schema, these gaps leave the description somewhat incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a behavioral note about lazy SQLite storage opening, which connects to the dataDir parameter, but it does not provide systematic parameter guidance beyond the schema. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 tool starts the local HTTP log-ingestion server and explains its role in receiving structured log events. It differentiates from siblings like probe_server_stop and probe_server_status by focusing on the start action.

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 explicitly states this must be called before any code can be instrumented or executions run, providing clear usage timing. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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