pm_dev

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

The description discloses the default port and allowed actions, but lacks details on synchronous/asynchronous behavior, prerequisites, or what the status response includes. With no annotations, the description provides basic transparency but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential default information efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema and only two parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and default port. It could mention if operations are synchronous, but remains complete for a simple dev server management tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the default port but does not elaborate on action values beyond the enum. At baseline 3, it offers slight added value.

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 clearly states the tool manages the PM development server with specific verbs (start, stop, restart, check status) and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on building, deployment, or configuration.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, pm_status might be used for overall project status, and no guidance is given on when pm_dev is the correct choice or when to avoid it.

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