The paste-able 'Growth (AfterLaunch)' section for this repository's CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md: how a coding agent should use AfterLaunch for growth, marketing, SEO, AI visibility (GEO), competitor and distribution work, and which tools cost money. Free, read-only. Show it to the founder and add it with their say-so.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating 'Free, read-only' and explaining that the snippet only provides documentation content, not modifications. It also clarifies the intended workflow (show to founder, add with consent), going beyond the annotation's safety flags.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence is long but packs essential detail about the snippet's content; the second gives a clear action. It is not overly verbose, though it could be split for better readability.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what the snippet contains, usage instructions, and cost implications. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned snippet contains, even though there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Since schema coverage is vacuously 100%, no additional parameter info 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a paste-able 'Growth (AfterLaunch)' section for CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md, specifying its content (how to use AfterLaunch for growth, marketing, SEO, GEO, competitors, distribution) and distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch specific data or perform actions.
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 explains when to use the snippet (when setting up AfterLaunch guidance for coding agents) and provides a clear instruction to show it to the founder and add it only with their approval. It also notes the tool is free, implying safe usage, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.