start_napcat_service

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose key traits: it starts a background process, waits on ports 3000/3001, and short-circuits if the service is already up (idempotent). It does not describe failure behavior, what happens on timeout, or any permission requirements, so the disclosure is useful 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 first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core action and idempotency. The trailing ':param' block is redundant with the input schema, duplicating documentation rather than adding information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only loosely indicates the return state ('直接返回就绪状态') without describing the response shape on failure or partial readiness. For a service-start tool with no annotations, it covers the essentials but leaves failure/timeout outcomes undefined.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The ':param' lines in the description restate the schema text verbatim (uin default-account fallback, wait_seconds max wait) without adding format, unit, or edge-case detail, so no value is added beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (启动本地 NapCat 后台服务进程) plus the scope of the operation (waiting for ports 3000/3001). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from restart/stop siblings by noting that an already-running service returns ready status directly, though it does not name those siblings 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 context is implied: use it to bring the service up, and it is idempotent when the service is already running. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer restart_napcat_service or deploy_or_update_napcat instead, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether NapCat must be installed first).

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