startDevice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start') but doesn't describe what happens during startup (e.g., boot time, state changes), potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption, impact on other devices), or error conditions (e.g., if device is already running). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'starting' entails behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or how parameters map to the device image concept, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 50% (only 'platform' has a description, 'localDevice' lacks one). The description mentions 'device image' but doesn't clarify how it relates to the parameters (e.g., whether 'deviceId' or 'name' corresponds to the image). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Start') and resource ('a device with the specified device image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setActiveDevice' or 'killDevice', which would require more specific context about what 'starting' entails versus activating or terminating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be stopped), related tools (e.g., 'killDevice' for stopping, 'listDevices' for checking status), or specific scenarios (e.g., testing with a particular image). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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