Start kanban server

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the mechanism: one server per process, a second call returns alreadyRunning:true rather than 'fighting for the port.' It also discloses that the server is local, that 0.0.0.0 yields an extra localhost URL, and that host/port are ignored once running — behavioral detail not encoded in any structured field.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return contents, then layers idempotency, dryRun, and routing guidance in descending priority. Slightly dense — the return-field enumeration and the sibling guidance compete for the opening — but nearly every clause carries operational weight.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what comes back, including the conditional localhost URL and the alreadyRunning flag. For a zero-required-param server-start tool, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by linking parameters to consequences — dryRun reports URLs 'without binding anything,' and binding 0.0.0.0 changes the return payload. It stops short of adding anything the schema's own per-property descriptions don't already cover for host and port.

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 and resource ('Start the local kanban board server') and immediately enumerates the four things returned (kanban URL, localhost URL, agent prompt, overlay guide). It also carves out its position relative to siblings by naming get_integration_guide, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Call it once before get_integration_guide so the guide carries real URLs') and explicit when-NOT ('skip it entirely for remote or Docker setups where a localhost server is unreachable'), plus the dryRun escape hatch. That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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