node service start

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint: true, so the agent knows multiple calls are safe. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the service is already running, dependency checks, or side effects). With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 start operation with 2 required string parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information on return values, error handling, preconditions (e.g., service existence), and idempotency confirmation, but these are partially covered by annotations.

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 50% (only 'service' has a description: 'Service name'). The tool description does not elaborate on the 'node' parameter's format (e.g., hostname vs IP) or any constraints. This leaves ambiguity for an agent.

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 identifies the resource as 'a systemd service', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like node_service_stop, node_service_restart, and node_service_reload.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., node_service_enable, node_service_restart). The agent is left to infer that 'start' is for initiating a stopped service, but no contextual hints are given.

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