start_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a one-shot session factory, that it detects version, starts infrastructure, connects the client, and accepts multiple base_url forms. It also gives authentication and post-operation timing guidance, going well beyond a bare action label.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds targeted guidance about base_url, credentials, and post-operation waiting. Every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter startup tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description supplies essential base_url and credentials guidance plus follow-up behavior, but it omits explanation of many meaningful parameters and does not relate itself to sessions_list/session_status/stop_session. Output schema covers return values, so invocation guidance is partially but not fully complete.

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 is the only documentation for 12 parameters. It meaningfully explains `base_url` (web publication URL, server/infobase, or file path) and implies `username`/`password` can be omitted when credentials are saved. The remaining parameters like `execute`, `version`, `extra_args`, `session_id`, `rag_enabled`, and `idle_timeout_minutes` are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'One-shot session factory: detect version, start infrastructure, and connect the 1C test client.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like stop_session, sessions_list, and session_status. The three-step behavior makes the tool's role 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 gives concrete usage context: 'Prefer credentials saved with `credentials_save` over passing secrets in tool calls' and points to `client_busy_status`/`wait_client_idle` after long UI operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with session_status/sessions_list.

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