Start local Micro development

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful transparency by disclosing that the runner is loopback-only, disposable, and official. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them, though it doesn't detail side effects such as building artifacts or background process 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 entire description is one tightly packed sentence with zero filler. Key qualifiers ('loopback-only', 'disposable', 'official') earn their place and the core action 'Build and start' 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 an output schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the artifact, its network scope, and its lifecycle. It could be stronger by explicitly linking to micro_dev_stop or clarifying when to prefer micro_deploy, but these are not blockers.

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 50%: path is documented, but port has only a default and numeric bounds with no explanatory text. The description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. For a tool with half its parameters undocumented, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Build and start') and a specific resource ('official loopback-only disposable Micro runner for this project'). This clearly separates it from siblings like micro_build (build-only), micro_deploy, and micro_preview by emphasizing the local disposable runner role.

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 conveys local development context with 'loopback-only' and 'for this project', making it clear this is the local dev runner rather than a deployment or remote operation. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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