slm_policy_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('启动' - start) but doesn't describe what starting a policy actually does operationally (e.g., initiates scheduled snapshots, activates enforcement), whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 brief (two lines) and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter section. However, the first line is somewhat redundant with the tool name ('slm_policy_start' already implies starting an SLM policy). The parameter section is helpful but could be more efficiently integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but doesn't maximize information density.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple related sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'starting' means in this context, what happens after invocation, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it differs from other SLM policy operations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 description explicitly lists the single parameter 'name' with a brief explanation ('策略名称' - policy name). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal information is sufficient to understand what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format constraints or examples (e.g., whether it's case-sensitive, must match an existing policy). Given the single parameter and complete lack of schema documentation, this earns a 4 for adding essential meaning.

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 states the tool's purpose as '启动快照生命周期策略' (start snapshot lifecycle policy), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'slm_policy_stop' (which presumably stops the same policy), nor does it explain what 'starting' a policy entails versus creating or getting one. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from related tools.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to SLM policies (create, delete, explain, get, stop), but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether a policy must exist first), when starting is appropriate versus creating, or what happens if the policy is already running. Usage context is entirely absent.

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