start_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool returns the local URL and that ports are auto-allocated unless specified, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as background process management, port conflict handling, or state changes beyond starting the server.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return value, then the port behavior. No filler or redundant phrases—every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential info needed for correct invocation: what it does, what it returns, and how port allocation works. It could mention prerequisites or cleanup steps, but those are not necessary for basic use and are partly covered by sibling tools like stop_server.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that ports are automatically allocated unless the optional 'port' parameter is provided, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Optional fixed port' description. 'For a presentation' also reinforces the meaning of the 'name' parameter as a folder 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 clearly states the tool starts the Slidev dev server for a presentation, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like stop_server and server_status, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like stop_server or server_status. It implies usage by stating 'Start the Slidev dev server' but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when alternatives are appropriate.

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