lms_server_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'manage', revealing nothing about side effects, return values, whether start/stop blocks, or what status reports. This is entirely opaque.

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 short, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It withholds essential operational detail while offering no meaningful content in its single sentence.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, yet the description fails to mention the available actions, return behavior, or how it differs from several similar sibling tools. The agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'action' parameter, but it doesn't mention it at all. The enum values are in the schema, but the description itself adds no semantic value.

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 generic verb 'manage' and basically restates the tool name ('lms_server_control' -> 'Manage the local inference server'). It doesn't specify the actual operations (start/stop/status) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like lms_runtime_control or check_server_status.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lms_runtime_control, lms_status, or load_local_model. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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