rolldev_start_svc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'start' services, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify what 'start' entails (e.g., whether it requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects). This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and target without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose in a minimal format, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of starting system services (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and lack of sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about behavior, outcomes, or usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_path' documented as 'Path to the project directory'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 'Start RollDev system services' clearly indicates the action (start) and target (RollDev system services), but it's vague about what 'system services' specifically entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'rolldev_start_project' or 'rolldev_stop_svc', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for starting services within a project (vs. 'rolldev_start_project' for the entire project) or how it relates to 'rolldev_stop_svc'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios for invocation.

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