Launch Shots

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: async background design taking 1–2 minutes, immediate return of a review link, retry-on-failure with the same set_id, no charge for failed runs, and the tablet set counting as a second generation requiring an API key.

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-loaded with the action and workflow position, then async behavior, then input guidance; nearly every sentence carries operational information. The app_description paragraph is slightly editorial but still earns its place by shaping output quality.

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 an 8-parameter, asynchronous generation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: upstream/downstream siblings, async timing, retry semantics, cost implications, and how to supply inputs in either mode.

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, but the description adds real semantic guidance the schema lacks: prefer set_id over inline screenshots, keep base64 under ~1 MB, and how to source app_description (README/store listing/product copy, specific beats generic).

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 — designing a finished App Store / Google Play screenshot set from uploaded screenshots — and places it as "Step 2 of 3" in a named workflow, which distinguishes it from prepare_screenshot_upload and get_screenshot_set 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?

Explicit sequencing: call prepare_screenshot_upload first, then this tool, then get_screenshot_set to wait for the result. It also gives a concrete fallback condition ("if you cannot run shell commands") for the inline base64 path and states set_id is preferred.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing degraded behavior: without an API key, it returns free-tier explanation and connection instructions rather than failing. It does not say whether calling it consumes quota, which is the one 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with what the tool returns front-loaded and the fallback case second. Every sentence 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?

No output schema and no params, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so at a summary level (account identity, remaining generations, free-tier fallback). Slightly incomplete because it doesn't clarify quota accounting side effects or the shape of the free-tier response.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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+resource: shows which LaunchShots account the connection uses and the remaining generation quota. That is unambiguous against siblings like list_projects or generate_screenshot_set, which operate on different resources, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Use is implied ('check your account/quota') and the no-API-key case is described, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer the call, but nothing routes the agent deliberately.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with a non-mutating poll. It goes well beyond them: latency expectations ('usually takes 1–2 minutes'), the fact a single call may not be enough, the contents of the response (review link, per-screen headline, three directions), and the auth/signup caveat for the editor. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 ordered by what the agent needs first: what the call does and how it waits, then what comes back and what to do with it, then the retry instruction. No filler and no restatement of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so concretely (link, headline, three directions). Combined with the retry and signup notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and act on the result without further context.

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 defines both parameters and the 0–50 bound, making 3 the baseline. The description adds real meaning by tying wait_seconds to the generation lifecycle and giving the 1–2 minute norm, which tells an agent the default 45s will often expire and a second call is expected rather than anomalous.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Check on a screenshot set') and immediately adds the polling contract ('waiting up to wait_seconds for it to finish'). 'Step 3 of 3' positions it relative to the sibling workflow tools (prepare_screenshot_upload, generate_screenshot_set) so an agent can tell it is the terminal read step, not a generator.

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 actionable downstream instructions: share the returned link with the user, who then picks one of three directions; and explicitly says 'If it is still generating, call again.' That covers the retry loop clearly. It stops short of naming the sibling tool an agent must call first, so the prerequisite is only implied by the step numbering.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering the safety and scope profile, the description adds useful context: results are the most recently edited projects in the account and include an editor link. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or the default limit, but the annotations reduce the burden significantly.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with zero waste, and the key scoping and ordering information is front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: it covers account scope, ordering, API key requirement, and the editor link. The only minor gap is not mentioning the configurable result count, though the schema already documents that.

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 optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully explains the limit. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and results in the baseline score.

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 ("List") and resource ("projects") scoped to the API key's account, with the useful qualifier "most recently edited." It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling screenshot-set tools, but the resource distinction is strong enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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?

It states a prerequisite ("Requires an API key") but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions beyond the auth requirement. The usage is implied by the list operation rather than actively guided.

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?

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing upload mechanics (HTTP PUT of raw bytes, ready-to-run curl commands in the response), a 2-hour URL TTL, and replacement semantics via re-PUTting to the same slot. It also explains the downstream consequence of the screenshot choices (headlines are generated from what is on screen), which no structured field conveys.

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 tight paragraphs in execution order: create slots, what to capture, how to upload, what to call next. Every sentence carries actionable information and the tool's role is front-loaded.

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 explaining what comes back (per-screenshot URLs plus curl commands) and what to do with it. For a one-parameter, non-destructive setup tool, nothing an agent needs 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% and the single parameter already documents the 1-10 range and the 3-8 sweet spot, so the description only adds framing about what the count represents (distinct core features). Useful but not a large increment over the schema.

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 a screenshot set and get one upload URL per screenshot') and pins its position in the workflow ('Step 1 of 3'), which is enough to separate it from generate_screenshot_set without opening either 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?

Explicit about what to supply (one screen per core feature, realistic content, in user-priority order) and what to exclude (empty states, onboarding walls, permission dialogs, debug banners, lorem ipsum), then names the follow-up tool to call with the returned set_id.

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