Boot a stopped environment and wait until SSH responds. Does nothing if already running; errors if the environment is missing.
Boot a stopped environment and wait until SSH answers. Does nothing if it is already running. Fails if no environment by that name exists - use env_fork to create one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | name of the environment |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | Yes | ||
| log | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency ('Does nothing if it is already running'), a blocking wait until SSH answers, and a failure mode for nonexistent names. It does not mention timeout behavior or return values, but the output schema covers some of that.
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, each carrying unique information: main action and wait, idempotent behavior, failure mode with corrective alternative. No filler and the essential behavior 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?
For a single-parameter boot tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the no-op case, the error case, and the correct fallback tool. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking it correctly is missing.
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 'name' fully, but the description adds contextual meaning: the name must reference an existing environment, and a missing environment causes failure rather than creation. This helps the agent avoid calling env_start with a new name.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Boot a stopped environment,' and clarifies the exact wait condition ('until SSH answers'). It also distinguishes itself by stating it is a no-op on a running environment and fails for missing names, so it is clearly separate from creation tools like env_fork or env_create.
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 states when to use the tool (start a stopped environment and wait for SSH) and explicitly routes the missing-environment case to env_fork: 'use env_fork to create one.' It does not enumerate all sibling exclusions, but the key alternative is covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.