start

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes further: it explains what repeat calls return (page address, port, tab title) and the precise condition under which a new tab appears (only when no page is connected). It also discloses the browser-tab side effect and the manual sound-enable step, which annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries distinct routing or behavioral information. It is slightly dense, with long semicolon-linked sentences, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned values (address, port, tab title) and the observable side effects. Combined with the alternative-route guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly or skip it.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 and object — starting Moontide, meaning its local web server plus a page in a new browser tab — and clarifies the follow-up interaction (one click to enable sound). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_code and edit_code, which are named and contrasted.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks, in any words, to start or open Moontide, or asks which tab or port is yours') and explicitly removes redundant calls: set_code and restore_version already start it, edit_code does not, and the start prompt is an equivalent path. This is a full when/when-not/alternatives map.

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