dsh_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses significant behavioral traits: the session lives on disk, the process is just cache, and auto-resurrection via ACP session/resume prevents conversation loss. It does not cover failure modes, resource cleanup needs, or auth requirements, but the core persistence behavior is well explained.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then adds relevant behavioral details and next steps in a few short clauses. Every sentence earns its place and 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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool does, its persistence behavior, return values, and next steps. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it and omits mention of cleanup (e.g., dsh_release) or error handling, leaving minor gaps for full contextual completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('新建') and resource ('DSH 会话'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool dsh_send by explaining that after creation you use dsh_send to assign tasks. It also clarifies the return values (conversation_id and title), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is for creating a new session, and it explicitly points to dsh_send for the next step. However, it does not state when not to use it (e.g., for resuming an existing session instead of creating a new one) or mention alternatives like dsh_get or dsh_list, leaving some guidance implicit.

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