Lando Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the action itself: no prerequisites (Lando installed, project initialized), no statement about what happens if the project is already running, no idempotency or failure behavior. For a state-changing start operation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the parameter clarification immediately after; there is no wasted text.

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. However, for a state-changing start tool with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites and re-run behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to anticipate the call's outcome.

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. It does add meaning by noting project_name is a directory (the schema only says type string with default "."), but it omits the default behavior and relative-vs-absolute path semantics, leaving the single parameter only partially clarified.

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 ("Start") and resource ("the Lando project"), and parenthetically clarifies that the parameter names a directory. This distinguishes it from lando_stop and lando_exec, though it does not explicitly differentiate from lando_setup or the ddev_* siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus lando_stop, lando_setup, or the parallel ddev_start/ddev_setup tools. The agent must infer that this is the local-development environment starter, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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