start_watcher

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true suggests no state mutation, but the description says 'start' which implies a side effect (launching a server). This contradiction lowers transparency. The description does add that it never returns metric values, but does not explain reuse behavior or side effects.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to convey all essential information with no wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete: it states the return (URL) and what it does not return (metric values). However, it omits details on reuse behavior and whether starting creates a new process or reuses an existing one, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 tool starts or reuses a Session Watcher dashboard server and returns its URL, explicitly noting it never returns metric values. This differentiates from siblings like stop_watcher and watcher_status, which are distinct actions.

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 usage to obtain the watcher URL but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus stop_watcher or watcher_status, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. Usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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