start_gui

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 mentions starting a web GUI and opening a browser, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as what happens if the server is already running (beyond the 'restart' parameter), whether this requires specific permissions, or potential side effects like port conflicts. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start the web GUI') and immediately states the outcome ('open it in browser'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (starting a GUI server with configurable options) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what the GUI enables, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (port, open_browser, restart) with defaults and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Start the web GUI for session management') and the outcome ('open it in browser'), using precise verbs that distinguish it from sibling tools like stop_gui or list_sessions. It explicitly identifies the resource (web GUI) and its purpose (session management), avoiding tautology with the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_gui or other session management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a server must be stopped first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.

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