aiworkhub_source_graph_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 does well: idempotency, single-thread guarantee, repeat safety, and no fabricated daemon for uninitialized repos are all disclosed. It stops short of covering auth/permissions, error modes, or whether the call blocks until readiness.

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, front-loaded with the core guarantee and then the safety caveats. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 empty parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, idempotency, safe contexts, and the uninitialized-repo caveat. Return values are handled by the output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema is fully sufficient and the description need not add parameter detail.

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 names a specific verb (ensure), resource (Source Graph indexing daemon), and scope (exactly one, active repository). It does not reference sibling tools like source_graph_health or source_graph_stop, so it stops short of explicit differentiation, but an agent can still identify the operation unambiguously.

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 lists concrete trigger contexts — InitRepo, activation, tab-deserialization, reload — which tells the agent when this is safe to call. It does not name alternative tools or state an explicit when-not beyond implying that uninitialized repositories won't produce a false running state.

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