aiworkhub_dispatcher_ensure_started

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: idempotent, exactly one dispatcher, bound to the current coordinator target, never starts a second thread, and never marks an uninitialized repository as degraded. It still lacks failure-mode or permission details, but for a zero-parameter lifecycle tool this 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and constraints, and every sentence contributes context about invocation or guarantees. The parenthetical '(B857)' and some caller-specific detail are slightly extraneous, but overall it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, binding, and caller conditions. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, and the empty schema fully covers the invocation surface.

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 ('ensure started') and resource ('callback dispatcher'), scoped to the active repository and coordinator target. It clearly distinguishes this lifecycle action from siblings like dispatcher_stop, dispatcher_health, and source_graph_ensure_started.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: after every MCP handshake (activation, tab-deserialization, reload) and after a coordinator-target switch. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage conditions are clear enough for an agent to understand the trigger.

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