server_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it blocks until the server is up, whether it fails gracefully if already running, or whether it requires elevated permissions). No details on output or state changes.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It's appropriately short for a zero-parameter operation, though it lacks a hint about what follows (e.g., checking status).

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 zero-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify expected outcomes (e.g., server starts asynchronously, check server_status to confirm). It doesn't do that, so an agent may not know how to verify success or handle errors.

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 schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description aligns with that.

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 ('Start') and resource ('the Paper Minecraft server process'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like server_stop and server_restart by focusing on the initial start action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from server_restart.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., server not already running), or conditions where server_restart might be preferred. No guidance on when not to use it.

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