Wake a sleeping server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry transparency. It explains the main effect (starting the server) and the no-op condition, but does not mention side effects like latency, cost, or failure behavior. For a wake operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff. It delivers the core action and the no-op clause efficiently. Perfectly sized for a tool description.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the trigger condition, and the no-op behavior. It does not mention prerequisites like server existence, but that is likely obvious from the parameter description. Overall, complete enough for typical use.

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 schema already describes the parameter as 'Server name from list_servers', which is clear. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action (start a server) and the intent (make the first tool call fast). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting the no-op when already running, making it purpose-specific.

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 implies when to use (before calling a tool on a sleeping server) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sleep_server. However, it gives clear guidance that it's safe to call even if running, which is helpful.

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