dev_start

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

Annotations (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) already indicate side effects and non-idempotency. The description adds that logs are teed into the buffer and explains auto-detection and override rules. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently detailing usage modes and sibling references. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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, the description covers the main functionality well. It mentions log tee-ing and references siblings for stop/status. However, it lacks explicit information about what happens if the server is already running (e.g., error or restart) or the return value/content. Still sufficiently complete for a dev tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant semantic value: it explains the three modes of specifying the server, default behavior when cmd/cwd are omitted, and that explicit parameters override project settings. This goes well beyond the schema's property 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 clearly states 'Start a dev server and tee its logs into the buffer' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing dev_stop and dev_status, and details three usage modes (project, explicit cmd+cwd, auto-detected).

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 explicitly describes three ways to specify the server and explains fallback behavior. It also directs the agent to sibling tools (dev_stop to stop, dev_status to check), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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