start_node

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the check=True polling behavior and diagnostic reporting for crashes, adding value beyond a generic 'start' description. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., lab must be open), but the provided detail is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary detail about the optional check behavior. Perfectly concise.

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 two optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and constraints. It misses potential error scenarios or prerequisites, but the tool's core functionality is well documented.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: node_id's omission starts all nodes, and check=True enables polling for single-node starts. This compensates completely for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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's primary function with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('node' or 'every node in the lab'), and it differentiates behavior based on node_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_node and get_node_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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (starting one or all nodes) and specifies that check=True applies only to single nodes. It implies usage without explicitly naming alternatives, but the lab context makes the use case evident.

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