VPS_startProjectV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that containers are brought up in correct dependency order, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavior if the project is already running, potential side effects, or authentication requirements. A 3 is appropriate given the lack of annotations and moderate transparency.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by dependency order detail and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and typical use cases. It could mention error handling or return behavior, but for this simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool starts all services in a Docker Compose project that are currently stopped, with specific verbs and resource. The title is not provided but the name is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_stopProjectV1 and VPS_restartProjectV1 by focusing on starting stopped projects.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use this to resume a project that was previously stopped or to start services after a system reboot,' providing clear context. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like VPS_restartProjectV1.

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