Start a managed local Laravel process

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds important behaviors: port 0 selects ephemeral port, occupied explicit ports are refused, and it does not adopt unrelated processes. This goes beyond annotations by detailing side effects and constraints.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds value. There is no redundant information.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and destructive nature, the description covers the most critical aspect (port behavior) and scope. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., process ID or URL) but is otherwise adequate for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the critical port behavior (port 0 = ephemeral, occupied port refused). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could mention more parameter constraints like host enum or readiness timeout.

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 specific language: 'Starts only a LocalDev-managed Laravel development server on a loopback host.' This clearly identifies the action (start), resource (Laravel development server), and scope (LocalDev-managed, loopback host), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_local_process.

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 hints at appropriate usage by stating it only starts 'LocalDev-managed' servers and that 'unrelated processes are never adopted or stopped.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, this provides clear boundaries for when to use the tool.

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