start_codespace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation (start) but does not mention that this is a state-changing mutation, any required permissions (e.g., ownership), potential errors if the codespace is already running, rate limits, or what the response contains. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, followed by a relevant documentation link. There is no redundant text or over-elaboration, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what the response will look like, what happens if the codespace is already running, or any preconditions beyond being stopped. These are important for an agent to know, so a score of 3 reflects the missing context.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, including a description of 'codespace_name' with an example. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start a stopped codespace for the authenticated user' uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('codespace'), clearly indicating the action and its scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stop_codespace' and 'create_codespace_in_repo', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'stopped codespace' gives clear context on when to use this tool (i.e., only for codespaces that are already stopped). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the condition of being stopped is implicitly an exclusion.

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