acs_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what 'starting' entails: whether it is blocking, whether it fails if port is in use, whether it spawns a background process, or what output is returned. The phrase merely restates the tool's function without adding any behavioral depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently concise, though it lacks any explanatory substance that would make it more valuable; still, for the simplicity of the tool, it is an appropriate size.

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?

Despite having a well-documented parameter schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not state return values, failure modes, or how to verify the server started. Sibling tools like acs_status imply the need for such context, which is missing here.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (mass, port, silent, logFile), and does not clarify relationships between parameters or defaults beyond schema descriptions.

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 '启动 miniACS 服务器' (Start miniACS server) states a clear, specific action with a distinct resource. It directly differentiates from sibling tools like acs_stop and acs_restart by naming 'start' as the operation.

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 such as acs_restart or acs_status. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., server not already running) or exclusions, so an agent gets no context beyond the obvious action.

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