simarch_toggle_localhost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lock/dormant vs unlocked/running state model and the 127.0.0.1 binding indirectly, but says nothing about what happens to live dashboard state on disable, port-in-use behavior, persistence after the session, or any access-control implication of starting an HTTP server.

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?

Two short sentences, decision stated first, gating condition second. No filler and nothing buried.

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-parameter boolean toggle with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the decision and the safety-relevant condition. Minor gaps around lifecycle side effects and return/error behavior, but an agent can call it correctly as written.

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 `enable` (start/stop) and `port` (loopback port) are already documented. The description adds a usage condition for `enable` but nothing beyond the schema about `port` or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: toggling the local HTTP dashboard server between unlocked/running and locked/dormant. The sibling tools are simulation/org/deliverable oriented, so the domain is obviously different, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself.

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?

"Call enable=true only when human visual inspection is needed" gives an explicit gating condition for the on-path, and the opening sentence implies the default is to leave it locked and dormant. No named alternative tool or exclusions beyond that.

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