start_webserver

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it warns that port binding needs admin rights, that the tool auto-attempts privilege escalation, and that a UAC dialog may appear on the user's desktop. The remaining gap is that it doesn't state what happens on failure after elevation is refused, or whether an already-running server produces an error.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it starts, the elevation fallback with its user-visible side effect, and the follow-up verification step. The ordering is front-loaded with the action and closes with the next step, with no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema lifecycle tool, the description covers the risky behavior (elevation/UAC) and the correct next action, which is what an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a slow start. It stops short of covering failure end-states or repeated invocation, leaving a small amount of ambiguity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Mentioning the underlying 'node index.js' invocation is extra context rather than a parameter explanation.

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 verb and resource (启动 WebServer 服务) and even reveals the underlying command (node index.js), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling webserver_status, which it names as the verification step rather than an alternative start mechanism.

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?

It implies the right moment to call (before checking status) and explicitly routes the agent to webserver_status a few seconds afterward, giving a clear usage sequence. The gap is that it never says when NOT to call it, e.g. what to do if the server is already running, so idempotency is left to inference.

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