Start Agent

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 states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if the target is invalid, whether starting an agent is destructive to existing processes, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that initiates processes, this gap is significant.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Start an agent') and efficiently specifies the context ('in a specific tmux target'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of starting an agent (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/failure indicators, or interaction with sibling tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and potential system impacts, more context is needed to guide safe and effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the tmux target format or agent types further). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 an agent') and the resource ('in a specific tmux target'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It uses specific terminology that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_status' (which checks status) or 'send_message' (which communicates). The verb 'Start' is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the tmux target must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if an agent is already running), or how it relates to siblings like 'get_agent_status' for monitoring. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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