start_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains that a config file is loaded immediately, invalid files cause a loud error (never silently ignored), and otherwise an interactive page is started with a URL returned. This is detailed and honest about potential failure modes.

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 well-structured with a clear conditional flow, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity—neither terse nor bloated—and front-loads the core purpose.

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 description fully covers the two operational modes and the critical error-handling behavior, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema. It could potentially mention prerequisites like the need for a localhost environment, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. It implicitly explains that configuration comes from an environment variable, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Begin configuring the audit run') and clearly delineates two distinct modes of operation (headless/CI via environment variable, interactive localhost page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config and begin_run, which are focused on reading configuration or starting the run itself.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, explicitly stating the environment variable path for headless/CI usage and the interactive fallback. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the purpose and conditions are unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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