LaunchBuddy — Audit My Launch

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a durable report artifact is produced (implying server-side persistence rather than a pure read), but says nothing about authentication, whether the assessment is stored against a project, rate limits, or whether scoring involves fetching the live page.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that covers both action and return value. It is well sized for a one-required-parameter tool, though the return clause could be trimmed or the freed space spent on the missing sibling guidance.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate more than it does. It names the return content, which is helpful, but leaves unanswered whether the call requires an install/project context, whether it mutates stored state, and how it relates to the six other launch-assessment siblings.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including that platform and installId are bridge-injected. The description adds only the qualifier 'public' for the URL, which is marginally beyond the 'Public HTTPS launch URL' schema text — 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Assess a public launch URL') and adds what comes back ('scored launch gaps plus a durable report URL'), which differentiates it from read-only siblings like get_assessment. It stops short of naming adjacent siblings such as audit_my_launch or reassess_launch, so the distinction is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over audit_my_launch (which sounds like an equivalent self-audit) or reassess_launch (which sounds like the follow-up path). The only hint is that the target is a 'public' URL, which weakly suggests external launches versus one's own project, but the agent must infer this.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does establish that this is a non-mutating analysis of an external URL that performs no account writes. It omits other behaviorally relevant facts: whether the URL must be publicly reachable, auth or rate-limit requirements, expected latency/cost, and what happens when a check fails or the page is unreachable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return shape and then the exclusions. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns at a high level (scores, evidence, fix packs, resources), and what it will not do. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling audit tools, which matters given how many near-duplicates exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: 'launch, technical, and agent-readiness' explains the three enum values of `checks`, and 'public URL' signals that `url` must be externally reachable rather than internal or authenticated. It still does not state whether `checks` is optional and defaults to all three, which the schema alone leaves ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Audit a public URL') plus the three check families it covers, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not name the closely related siblings (assess_launch, verify_launch_audit, reassess_launch), so an agent still has to infer the boundary from those tools' own definitions.

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?

'No account actions, provider generation, or publishing' is a useful negative scope statement that rules out create_recommended_asset, preview_recommended_asset, and publishing paths. However, there is no positive when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing against assess_launch or verify_launch_audit, which are the most likely confusions.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a write to the connected account and that no trial is started (a billing/plan-relevant fact), which is useful beyond a bare name. But it omits what happens on an expired or already-claimed token, whether the call is idempotent, and what the caller gets back, all material 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no wasted clauses. The trailing 'without scanning again or starting a trial' is partly benefit framing, but it does carry usage information, so it 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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is saved and where. It is still thin on outcome behavior (what the account ends up with, failure modes on an expired token), which an agent would want before invoking a state-changing call.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains claimToken as an expiring token from anonymous assess_launch. The description adds no further meaning about the token, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: save an anonymous assessment to the connected account. The word 'anonymous' plus 'connected account' makes the anonymous-to-owned conversion clear, which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_assessment. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 clause 'without scanning again or starting a trial' implies the situation to use it (an anonymous assessment already exists and should be persisted rather than re-run), which implicitly rules out assess_launch. However, it never names that alternative or states the prerequisite that a valid claimToken from a prior anonymous assess_launch is required; the reader has to reconstruct that from the schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at caching ("cached plan") and cost ("free") but never states whether create is idempotent, when the cache is invalidated or refreshed, what permissions on the connected project are required, or what a caller gets back.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers (free, cached, ranked, connected project) are packed efficiently. It is concise, though slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is roughly adequate but leaves the dual create/read semantics unresolved and says nothing about what the "plan" contains or how ranked work is structured, which matters for a tool whose output has no documented shape.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. "For a connected project" adds a meaningful constraint that projectId must reference a connected project (not merely any project from list_projects), which is real value beyond the bare string type, though it doesn't clarify format or failure behavior for unconnected projects.

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 names a resource ("plan of ranked launch work") and a scope ("for a connected project"), but the compound verb "Create or read" leaves the primary action ambiguous and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like assess_launch or get_launch_todos, which also relate to launch work.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it doesn't say whether to call this before assess_launch, whether it triggers work or just reads a cache, or when a caller should prefer get_launch_todos instead. The only hint is the word "free," which implies a cost tradeoff but no concrete selection rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver genuine value: "Never charges or publishes" rules out the two most dangerous side effects, and the resumable paid/approval handoff warns the agent the call may not complete. However, it never states whether anything is persisted, whether the call is idempotent, what auth or scope is needed, or how the handoff is actually resumed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the safety caveat is placed immediately after the purpose. The brevity borders on cryptic rather than wasteful, but nothing is padded.

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-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the safety profile but leaves the core semantics thin: what "prepare" produces, what the paid/approval handoff looks like, and how to resume it are all unstated. The agent has enough to avoid harm but not enough to predict the result.

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 0% for the single projectId parameter, so the description would have to compensate, and it offers nothing about scope or format. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being worse than adequate.

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?

"Prepare the highest-priority asset" gives a verb and a resource, but "prepare" is ambiguous (create a draft? generate content? stage a purchase?) and "highest-priority" is undefined. The name says "create" while the description says "prepare," and the closest sibling, preview_recommended_asset, is never referenced to clarify the distinction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though preview_recommended_asset plainly exists as a likely precursor. The only usage signal is implied by the caveat that a paid/approval handoff may be returned.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does list the categories of information returned (identity, trial status, paid entitlement, capabilities), which effectively describes the response in the absence of an output schema, but it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether results are cached or scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the list of returned facets is compact and information-dense. It is not padded, though it is short enough that nothing is structured into when-to-use vs. what-it-returns.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content but omits the meaning of the required projectId and any usage context. It is minimum viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so projectId is completely undocumented in the schema and equally absent from the description. The description does not clarify whether access/entitlements are project-scoped or account-wide, leaving the single required parameter without meaning.

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 gives a clear verb ('Explain') and enumerates the exact resource being reported: identity, trial, paid entitlement, and available capabilities. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with get_launch_resource or other lookup siblings, so differentiation is by naming alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'current' hints at a state check, but an agent gets no guidance on whether to call this before or after other launch tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating lookup and 'resumable' hints at state persistence, but there is no statement about permissions, what happens when the intent is absent or expired, whether the read is idempotent, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being a stylistic flaw in itself.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information, and it provides just an enumeration of state categories. For a two-parameter lookup whose identity and result shape are both undefined, this is under-specified.

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 0% and both required parameters (projectId, intentId) are undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter or their relationship (e.g. that the intent is scoped to a project), so it fails to 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 verb 'Read' and the resource ('resumable payment, approval, render, and verification state') are stated, so the agent gets a rough sense of what comes back. But 'action intent' itself is never defined, and nothing distinguishes this from the other, largely launch-oriented sibling tools. The purpose is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'after a web handoff' hints at one triggering context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the sixteen siblings. An agent has to guess whether to call this or get_launch_resource / get_assessment.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral facts beyond the schema: the operation is a read, and only "public" (otherwise unauthenticated/shared) assessments are reachable. It says nothing about what happens with an unknown or non-public scan id, nor about rate limits or idempotency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Nothing is duplicated or wasted, though there is also no room for the missing lookup/error context.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch what the assessment payload looks like or what happens on a miss. It does neither, leaving the return shape and failure behavior entirely undisclosed.

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 0%, so the single parameter is documented only as a string. The description partially compensates by naming it as the scan id that identifies a saved public assessment, but adds no format, source, or validity guidance for that value.

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 ("Read a saved public LaunchBuddy assessment") plus the key used to address it (scan id). The words "saved" and "public" implicitly separate it from creation-style siblings like assess_launch/reassess_launch and from claim_assessment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this retrieves an already-existing assessment by id rather than producing a new one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over claim_assessment or reassess_launch, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation on 'public' resources and that results include canonical URL and channel availability, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown/expired ID (empty result vs error) or any access constraints beyond 'public'.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource, the lookup key, and the notable return fields; nothing is padded. It is perhaps slightly over-compressed, folding return-value detail into a purpose statement.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, lookup key, and the key returned fields. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a missing or non-public ID, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful qualifier 'stable ID', signaling this is a durable identifier rather than a slug or name, but gives no format, example, or accepted ID namespace.

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: 'Read one public launch resource by its stable ID'. The phrase 'one' implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling search_launch_resources, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'by its stable ID' implies the precondition that the caller already holds an identifier, which nudges toward use over search_launch_resources. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the search sibling for callers who only have a name or URL.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and says the response includes completion progress, but it does not disclose permissions, whether the result is paginated, what happens if projectId is invalid, or any other operational behavior.

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 with no wasted wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though the phrase "connected project checklist" remains somewhat vague.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it leaves the sole required parameter unexplained and says nothing about the shape or limits of the returned checklist data, which an agent would need in order to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the single required parameter, projectId, is never mentioned in the description. The phrase "connected project" hints that a project context is involved, but it does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or required status.

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, "Read," and names the resource: the connected project checklist plus its completion progress. That is clearer than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish this from update_launch_todo, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_launch_resource or list_projects.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The word "Read" implies a retrieval operation, but the agent must infer on its own why it would choose this over get_launch_resource, list_projects, or update_launch_todo.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, authorization requirements, result size, or error behavior for an account with many or zero projects.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope front-loaded ("connected account's") and zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool this covers the core purpose, but with no output schema the description should say what a project entry contains or how results are shaped/paginated. As written, an agent knows what it lists but not what it gets back.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a param-free tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("LaunchBuddy projects") scoped to the connected account, so an agent knows exactly what it returns at a high level. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools (e.g. search_launch_resources or get_launch_resource), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and one-line purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no provider spend is incurred, which is the key side-effect question for this tool, but it does not say whether the preview persists anything, whether it requires an existing project/assessment, or what 'highest-priority' is ranked against.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb and the cost guarantee are both stated immediately.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but with no output schema the description should indicate what the preview actually returns (a brief, a proposal, a cost estimate). That omission leaves the agent unsure what to do with the result.

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 0% for the single required parameter projectId. The description says nothing about it, so an agent gets no confirmation that projectId selects the project whose recommended asset is previewed, nor any format guidance. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1.

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 and resource ('Preview the highest-priority asset brief') and distinguishes the result from the sibling create_recommended_asset by framing it as a preview. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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 phrase 'without starting provider spend' implies a dry-run check before committing to create_recommended_asset, which is useful implicit routing. However, it never states explicitly when to choose this over creating the asset, nor any prerequisite such as an existing assessment or growth plan.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important side-effect fact — that no second project is created and the existing one is reused — plus that a score comparison results. It omits whether the prior assessment is overwritten, permission/auth requirements, and any failure mode for a non-connected project.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the non-obvious constraint ('without creating a second project') is placed where it will be read. Slightly vague on what 'compare its score' yields, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core action and the re-use constraint. It still leaves the agent guessing about the return shape of the score comparison and about error handling for unconnected projects, which the missing output schema makes more important.

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 50%: the optional 'url' replacement parameter is fully documented in the schema, while 'projectId' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by implying projectId must reference an already-connected project, but says nothing about identifier format or what happens if the ID is unknown.

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+resource combination ('Reassess a connected project') and adds the distinguishing constraint that no second project is created. It separates itself from the sibling assess_launch by implication rather than by name, so the differentiation is clear but not explicit.

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 phrase 'after changes' gives a usable trigger condition for when to call this, which is more than nothing. However, it never names assess_launch as the alternative for an initial assessment, nor states prerequisites (e.g., project must already be assessed/connected) or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely valuable behavioral caveat: channel presence never proves eligibility, supported submission, or publication, which prevents the agent over-trusting results. However, it omits other important traits such as read-only nature, result ordering/ranking, default page size, and what the returned items look like.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the caution appended, no filler or restated field names. The second sentence is slightly cryptic in isolation ('Channel presence never proves...') but is still short and purposeful.

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 four-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less search tool, the description leaves major gaps: no indication of what a result item contains, how guides/skills/channels differ in shape, how 'query' interacts with the enum 'gap' filter, or any default for 'limit'. An agent would need to guess several behaviors before calling it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters and largely does not. It gestures at 'gap' via 'a specific gap' and loosely at 'source' via the listed resource types, but never explains the ten gap values, what each of launchbuddy/launchready/agentready/swarm contains, the meaning or default of 'limit', or the role of 'query' versus '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 gives a specific verb ('Find') plus a concrete resource set ('public guides, skills, and Swarm launch channels') scoped to 'a specific gap', so an agent knows this is a discovery/search tool rather than a fetch-by-id tool. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the adjacent get_launch_resource sibling, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for a specific gap' suggests calling it after a gap has been identified, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_launch_resource for a known resource). The second sentence is result-interpretation guidance rather than selection guidance, so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that no provider work is started and that the task must be owned. It says nothing about whether this is a partial or full replacement of fields, what happens when the caller doesn't own the task, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For an unannotated mutation tool, that is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing constraint is placed immediately after the core action. It is arguably too terse for the complexity of the operation, but under-specification is captured in other dimensions rather than here.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema description coverage needs considerably more than one sentence. The key term 'provider work' is never defined, and the effect of a partial update on unspecified fields is left entirely unstated.

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 only 40% (todoId, projectId, and the status enum are undocumented in the schema), so the description needs to compensate and does not. It adds only the 'one' constraint on todoId and the ownership condition; it never explains status transition semantics, whether notes/owner are optional, or how projectId scopes the lookup.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Update one owned launch task' names the mutation and the target entity, and 'one' signals a single-item scope that separates it from list-style siblings like get_launch_todos. It doesn't enumerate which fields are updatable, so the agent still has to open the schema, but the tool's identity is unmistakable.

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?

'without starting provider work' implies a when-to-use boundary (use this for bookkeeping-only edits rather than anything that triggers external provider actions), and 'owned' implies an ownership precondition. Neither is stated as an explicit rule, and no sibling is named as the alternative, so guidance is implied rather than given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: unavailable checks stay marked unobservable rather than being dropped or guessed, and the prior audit must correspond to the same URL. It does not state whether the call mutates stored state, whether it is idempotent, or how long a recheck takes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by behavioral and prerequisite details; nothing is repeated or padded. 'Preserve unavailable checks as unobservable' is slightly compressed phrasing but still parses as an instruction about result handling.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core concept, the prerequisite, and one result-handling rule. It falls short on what the audit JSON must contain and what the agent receives back, leaving meaningful gaps for a nested-object tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that 'previous_audit' is the original audit JSON and that it must match the supplied URL. The url parameter and the expected internal shape of the nested audit object remain undocumented in both 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Recheck the native findings from a saved audit.' The phrase 'after changes are live' frames it as a post-deployment verification pass, which helps distinguish it from a fresh assessment. It never names the closest sibling (reassess_launch), so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 a timing condition ('after changes are live') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires original audit JSON for the same URL'), which is real usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer reassess_launch or assess_launch instead of this verification step, nor what happens if the URL differs from the saved audit.

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