kasm_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it warns the operation takes ~2 minutes because it installs the input tool, and states the session runs under the owner's identity. It omits what happens if a session is already running or what failure modes exist, but the latency and side-effect disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the cost estimate and the required next step. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter startup tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how long it takes, and what to call next. It could mention behavior on repeat invocation, but an agent has enough to act correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single 'workspace' parameter with an example. The description's inline examples ('Chrome', 'Terminal') largely duplicate that, adding no new format or constraint information. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a Kasm workspace session') with concrete examples ('Chrome', 'Terminal'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings by naming kasm_look as the follow-up, though it does not explicitly contrast with kasm_stop or kasm_list.

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?

Gives clear context ('as the owner, so they can watch it') and an explicit sequencing instruction: 'Then call kasm_look.' No when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are offered, but the invocation path is unambiguous.

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