start

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 but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., starting a server, consuming resources), error conditions, or output behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely executes code with runtime implications.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and implementation. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, potential errors, or return values, which is critical for a tool that runs scripts and may have side effects.

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 50%, with 'args' documented but '_' not described. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying execution of a script, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides some 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 action ('Run npm script "start"') and the specific implementation ('node ./dist/index.js'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build' or 'test', which likely run different npm scripts, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'build' or 'test'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether 'dist/index.js' must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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