start_bot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether starting is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., resuming trading), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Parameters and Returns. It avoids unnecessary details, though the Parameters section includes 'ctx' which isn't in the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves system control. It doesn't explain what 'starting' entails operationally, success/failure states, or return value specifics beyond a vague string, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly notes the 'ctx' parameter in its Parameters section, but since parameters are not part of the schema, this adds minimal value. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the action ('Start') and resource ('Freqtrade bot'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'stop_bot' in terms of what 'starting' entails versus other bot management operations, making it somewhat vague in distinguishing from alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_bot' or 'fetch_bot_status'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., bot must be stopped) or scenarios where starting is appropriate, offering no usage instructions.

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