start_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that an invalid config file produces a loud error rather than a silent default, that browser opening is best-effort with an opened_in_browser field in the response, and that the URL is returned as a fallback. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond a bare statement of purpose.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every clause provides meaningful behavioral or contextual detail, and there is no wasted wording.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers both operating modes, error behavior, browser handling, and response contents, leaving no significant gap for an agent to infer.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema coverage. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 opens with 'Begin configuring the audit run,' clearly identifying the tool's action and resource. It further distinguishes the headless/CI path from the interactive path, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_config and begin_run.

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 explains when the headless/CI path is triggered (when ENGINEERING_AUDIT_CONFIG is set) and when the interactive page is used, providing clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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