Ddev Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: DDEV resolves the project from the working directory, and passing another project's path starts that project, not the server's own directory. It still omits behavior when the project is already running or failure modes, but it adds real operational context.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter clarification. All sentences earn their place, though the explanation of the path semantics is slightly repetitive across the two final clauses.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully covered. The only gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance relative to the lando/ddev sibling start tools, which for a simple start command is a minor shortfall rather than a blocking one.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that project_name is the project *directory* (not a server or a project name), that the default '.' resolves from the working directory, and that it must contain .ddev. This is meaning well beyond the bare type/default in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start the DDEV project'. An agent immediately knows this is a container/environment start action. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling lando_start or contrasts with ddev_stop, so sibling differentiation is left to the name.

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 context for the parameter ('must be the directory containing .ddev') but never states when to use ddev_start versus lando_start or when it is inappropriate. Usage is implied by the verb rather than spelled out, which is the minimum viable level.

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