telnet_proxy_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the side effect (starting a relay on another port), the relay nature, and the limitation that it does not decode bytes. It doesn't mention lifecycle details like how the port is chosen or reported, which is a minor gap.

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 two tight sentences with the action and resource in the first clause and the rationale plus non-decoding caveat in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless start action, the description covers purpose, behavior, and key limitation. The only notable gaps are not mentioning how the proxy port is determined or pointing to telnet_proxy_status/stop for managing the started relay, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no naming or format burden. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining what the inputless tool accomplishes and why the relay exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start'), a concrete resource ('TCP relay'), and explains the effect ('re-serves the RTT stream on another port'). It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('It relays bytes; it does not decode them'), which helps distinguish it from decoding-related 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?

The intended use case is clear: enable an external decoder such as Trice or Pigweed to consume the RTT stream alongside this server. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the start/stop/status/read sibling structure makes the role fairly obvious.

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