ember_test_server_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool builds and starts a server, but fails to mention side effects like port binding, that a server stays running, or how to stop it. This is severely lacking for a tool that starts a long-running process.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. While minimal, it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured but is not wasteful.

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 no output schema and a tool that involves starting a server, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the user should do after starting (e.g., use 'ember_test_server_run' to run tests, or 'ember_stop_server' to stop), and doesn't mention that port may conflict or need configuration. Lacks critical context for a multi-step workflow.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds the app for testing and starts a test server for browser-based testing, with a specific verb ('build' and 'start') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'ember_test' (runs tests) and 'ember_test_server_run' (likely runs tests on the server).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'ember_test_server_run' and 'ember_build_test', but no contextual hints or exclusions are provided in the description.

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