start_kanban

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by explaining what idempotency actually looks like in practice (second call returns the running instance with alreadyRunning:true instead of contending for the port) and enumerating the returned payload. It does not mention how the server is stopped or any auth/CORS implications.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then idempotency, then the ordering constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so (URL, localhost URL, agent prompt, integration guide). Annotations cover the mutation/safety angle. Minor gap: lifecycle concerns such as stopping the server or port-conflict behavior on the first call are unaddressed.

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 host, port and dryRun semantics (defaults, 0.0.0.0 LAN behavior, ignore-when-running) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Start the local kanban board server') plus an explicit statement of what it returns (URLs, agent prompt, overlay guide). It is clearly distinguishable from the neighboring get_integration_guide, which it names, and from task CRUD siblings.

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 sequencing: 'Call it once before get_integration_guide so the guide carries real URLs,' and reassures that a second call returns the running instance rather than failing. No explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. in remote/Docker setups), but the ordering guidance is well covered.

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