start_lab

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 only states the action without disclosing side effects, the impact of the 'wait' parameter, error behaviors, or whether the operation is safe/reversible. This is a significant gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no fluff. Every word earns its place, though it may be under-specified, that is evaluated elsewhere.

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 tool with two parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools like start_node, the description is incomplete. It omits details about the wait parameter, return behavior, and when to choose this over alternatives, leaving an agent to guess or infer critical operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention lab_id or wait at all, leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema, which also lacks descriptions. No semantic value is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start (boot)') and resource ('every node in a lab'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_node, which starts a single node. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies the use case (boot all nodes in a lab) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus start_node or stop_lab, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic implied usage.

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