start_session

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details: the session is 'visible', it runs under a fixed server-start identity, and it opens a local TCP Tcl channel. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover side effects, blocking behavior, session lifecycle, cleanup responsibility, or 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 dense sentence with no filler. It efficiently front-loads the action, visibility, identity constraint, and transport mechanism.

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 session-starting tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, the description gives enough high-level context to attempt a basic call but omits parameter roles and lifecycle guidance. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but not invocation semantics.

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 only 25%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It indirectly explains the port via 'local TCP Tcl channel' and touches on vivado_path identity, but port, timeout_s, and runtime_dir remain effectively undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 ('Start'), a clear resource ('visible Vivado GUI session'), and a concrete outcome ('open a local TCP Tcl channel'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like stop_session and session_status.

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 implies the tool should be used when a Vivado GUI session with a Tcl channel is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative-tool guidance are provided.

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