Ddev Start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb: no idempotency (what if already running), blocking/timeout behavior, side effects on containers, or permission requirements. 'Start' at least signals a mutating lifecycle action, which is why it is not a 1.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with verb then resource, so it is maximally concise. However, this brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; it leaves the agent with no actionable detail.

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 tool is low complexity and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a lifecycle command the description omits the project_name semantics and any behavioral context (idempotency, prerequisite setup), leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 single parameter project_name has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The default of '.' strongly suggests a path or project-directory convention, but the description does not confirm whether a name, path, or current-directory sentinel is expected.

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 clear verb+resource ('Start DDEV project'), which distinguishes it from ddev_stop and, via the 'DDEV' qualifier, from lando_start. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lifecycle tools like ddev_setup or ddev_exec, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus ddev_setup, ddev_exec, or lanch/lando_start, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the project be initialized first?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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