start_application

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions initialization and accessibility but omits details like idempotency, side effects if already started, required permissions, or output. The description adds some value beyond the tool name but lacks thoroughness.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, no fluff.

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 lifecycle tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context. It explains the action (start) and result (initialize container, make accessible). It could mention what 'accessible' means (e.g., URL) or return value, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 100% (one parameter with description on how to obtain UUID). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 a previously created application, initializes the container, and makes it accessible. The verb 'start' and resource 'application' are specific, and the description distinguishes from siblings like create_application (creation) and restart_application (restart).

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 implies the application must already exist ('previously created application'), and the parameter description instructs how to obtain the UUID via list or create tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., if already running, use restart_application) or compare with start_service.

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