client_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that the client launches windowed (with a rationale), refuses connection without a stand, reads and warns about pauseMode, defines readiness by player count rather than a timer, and explains failure reporting. It also reveals the extra_args opt-in behavior and refusal of computed arguments. This is exceptional transparency beyond basic annotations.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence adds essential context. The structure uses clear headings ('IT LAUNCHES WINDOWED...', 'READINESS IS...') to front-load critical knowledge. No redundant filler; each paragraph addresses a distinct aspect of behavior. Despite its length, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 prerequisites, return value (job id), failure modes, behavioral quirks, and parameter restrictions. It even explains how to interpret readiness. The output schema is present, so return format is assumed. This is a model of completeness for a complex tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains extra_args, including its append-only nature and protected arguments. However, timeout is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description; an agent must infer its role (likely a wait limit). This is a notable gap for a parameter that controls the tool's blocking behavior. Overall, partial compensation.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Start the game client and connect it to the test stand. Returns a job id.' This identifies the verb, resource, and outcome. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like client_status and client_stop by its unique launch role. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 extensive contextual guidance on when to call it: it requires a stand to join, explains the readiness condition (player count, not timer), and warns about windowed mode. It implies the appropriate timing and prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the conditions make that clear. Slight gap in explicit exclusion.

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