start_local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: becoming the owner and generating a token that others use to connect via IP. However, it omits lifecycle details such as whether the server runs in the background, how to stop it, or what the output (e.g., token and IP) looks like. This is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Start a local ACDP coordination server'). Every sentence adds value: what it does, who becomes owner, how others connect, and when to use it. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core behavior but does not clarify how the IP/token are returned (via output, logs, etc.) or whether the process blocks. This leaves post-invocation expectations vague, which is a significant gap for a state-changing server-start tool.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is warranted. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a local ACDP coordination server.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like connect_remote by stating 'You become the owner' and that other agents connect to you. This is not a tautology and uniquely identifies the action.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use this when YOU are hosting the coordination.' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., connect_remote) or include a when-not-to-use clause. The condition is sufficient to guide the agent.

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