start_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it opens a terminal window and describes the remote SSH tunnel mechanism, but does not state whether the call blocks, requires specific permissions, or what happens after the server starts. This is a moderate disclosure for a server-start tool.

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 action and followed by mode-specific details. No filler or redundant information. The structure is efficient and easily scannable.

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 covers the two operating modes and the key parameters, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe return behavior or prerequisites, but given the tool's nature and the absence of an output schema, these are minor omissions. The description is mostly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that forward_agent is ignored for local servers and by explaining the host parameter's role in choosing local vs remote mode. This goes beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 (start) and resource (sudo-proxy server), and clearly distinguishes local vs remote modes. This differentiates it from siblings like execute and update_host, which have different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 local vs remote mode (based on host presence), but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to sibling tools. The guidance is implicit but sufficient for an agent to decide based on the host parameter.

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