start_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter meanings but omits critical details: whether the operation is synchronous, what happens if a node is already running, error handling, or required permissions. This lack of transparency forces the agent to infer or discover behavior.

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 extremely concise—three sentences total—and front-loads the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about side effects (e.g., state changes), prerequisites (lab must be open?), and error conditions. For a simple start operation with two parameters, it is minimally complete but could better cover operational semantics.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section is essential. It explains that lab_path is the full path to a .unl file and that node_id can be omitted to start all nodes. While minimal (no type constraints or valid values), it provides enough meaning for basic usage.

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 the specific verb 'Start' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one node, or every node in the lab if `node_id` is omitted.' This directly differentiates from sibling operations like stop_node, wipe_node, etc., making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_node, wipe_node, or other node operations. It does not include explicit when/when-not conditions or mention prerequisites like lab_open or node existence.

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