up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool spawns a background process that outlives the MCP session, where it persists ('kranz ps'), and that it lasts until someone stops it. It also states what it does not do ('without starting any service'), which is the key side-effect an agent needs to know. This is the exact behavioral context annotations would otherwise have had to supply.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the durability detail, and the usage restriction last. Every clause carries information: scope, isolation from services, process lifetime, persistence location, and when to invoke. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the persistence and confirmation rationale an agent needs before calling. It could be slightly more complete by pointing at the sibling used to stop or inspect the runtime, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'process outlives this session' rationale that the confirm parameter's own schema description already gives, adding little beyond the structured field; the directory parameter's default behavior is likewise already documented in the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Start the runtime of a project') and immediately narrows scope with 'that has none' and 'without starting any service', which separates it from the sibling 'start'. It does not name the sibling alternative outright, so an agent must infer the contrast, but the scope qualifiers make the distinction legible.

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?

'use it only when asked to bring a project up' is an explicit positive condition plus an exclusion ('only when asked'), which is stronger than most definitions. It falls short of 5 because it never names the alternative tool (start/down/restart) that an agent should reach for in other cases.

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