start_service

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 describes the action ('initiate Ambari request'), return types (success with request info, failure with error message), and mentions 'safe and monitored startup'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or prerequisites (e.g., service must be stopped). This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 well-structured with sections (Tool Role, Core Functions, etc.), making it easy to scan. It is somewhat lengthy but each section adds useful information. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, return types, and usage scenarios. It does not mention output schema details (though context indicates an output schema exists), but the description already explains the return format. It lacks prerequisites or edge cases, but overall is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 one required parameter (service_name) with no description. The description adds value by providing examples ('HDFS', 'YARN', 'HBASE') and a clear purpose. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensation is strong, though it could include format constraints or allowed values.

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 it 'Starts a specific service in the Ambari cluster' using a specific verb and resource. The 'Core Functions' and 'Required Usage Scenarios' further reinforce the purpose and differentiate it from sibling tools like stop_service, restart_service, and start_all_services.

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?

It explicitly lists required usage scenarios (e.g., when users request to start a service, recovering stopped services). It does not directly state when not to use, but the naming of sibling tools implies alternatives (e.g., start_all_services for bulk). The guidance is clear but could be slightly more explicit about exclusions.

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