start_guardian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that multiple Guardians can run and each watches its own path/language, but it does not mention side effects, whether this launches a background process, permission requirements, concurrency implications, or how to observe the Guardian afterward.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second and third sentences overlap somewhat ('start multiple Guardians' vs. 'Each Guardian watches its own path'), so it is not maximally tight, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough to make the call but is incomplete about postconditions. It does not explain what happens after activation, how to check Guardian status, or how this tool relates to sibling lifecycle tools like stop_guardian and get_guardian_status.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful semantic context by tying each Guardian to its own projectPath and language, but it does not explain parameter formats, default behavior, or mode semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a clear action and resource: 'Activate a VibeGuard Agent.' It also explains that each Guardian watches its own path and language, which helps distinguish this from generic validation tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like start_validation or validate_code, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies a usage context: starting multiple Guardians to watch different codebase parts. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as validate_code or start_validation, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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