Run Station

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a station is started, but it does not mention side effects such as whether an already-running station is overridden, whether the command is asynchronous, or what happens on failure. This is a notable gap for a tool that mutates controller state.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. The main missing piece is behavioral context around what happens when the station is started, but the operation is simple enough that the one-line description covers the essential invocation intent.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action, 'Start a station,' and the key qualifier 'for a specified duration,' which clearly separates it from sibling tools like stop_station and get_stations. It is not a tautology and immediately identifies the resource and behavior.

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 makes the use case clear: invoke this tool when you want to start a station with a timed duration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (stop_station, stop_all_stations, get_stations) make the intended contrast obvious without further explanation.

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