start_napcat_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it launches a background process, blocks waiting for port readiness, and is idempotent when already running. It omits what happens on timeout, whether the call blocks for the full wait_seconds, and what side effects or permissions the start entails.

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 behavioral sentences are front-loaded and tight, but the two ':param' lines duplicate the schema descriptions word-for-word, adding length without value.

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 two-optional-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (start, wait for ports, idempotent return). Only the failure/timeout path is left unspecified, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the ':param' lines are a verbatim restatement. No additional meaning (e.g., valid uin formats, whether wait_seconds applies when the service is already up) is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: start the local NapCat background service process and wait for ports 3000/3001 to become ready. This clearly separates it from sibling lifecycle tools like stop_napcat_service and restart_napcat_service, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the lifecycle context, and the idempotency note ('if the service is already running, return ready state directly') implicitly tells the agent it is safe to call when uncertain. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over restart_napcat_service, stop_napcat_service, or checking get_napcat_status first.

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