lm_server_control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutating and local-only nature is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful detail not in the annotations: the server binds to 127.0.0.1 and never the LAN. It does not say what stopping the server does to in-flight inference or loaded models, which is the most consequential missing behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability stated first and the network-binding constraint second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter control tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the operations and the security-relevant binding behavior. It is only slightly thin on what 'status' returns and on the restart action.

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 coverage is 0% and there is a single enum parameter whose values are largely self-describing. The description maps three of the four values (check=status, start, stop) but leaves 'restart' unexplained, so it adds only partial meaning over the schema.

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 names a specific resource (the LM Studio HTTP server) and the operations performed on it (check/start/stop), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings such as lm_status or lm_runtime, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated operations rather than stated: there is no explicit guidance on when to control the server versus inspecting it via lm_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description also omits 'restart', one of the four enum values, so the usage picture it paints is incomplete.

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