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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses response size behavior ('Default response is summary-sized') and the alias relationship, which are useful. However, it does not clarify whether the tool itself can execute approved actions or merely returns the next step, leaving potential side effects ambiguous. This is a notable gap for a tool that might trigger actions.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with an alias note and purpose, then usage context, response shape, and parameter guidance. Each sentence contributes valuable information without fluff. The list of possible next actions is compact and informative.

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 part of a complex workflow with many siblings, but the description adequately covers its role: when to call it, what it does, and key response characteristics. It lacks detailed return structure and side-effect clarification, but the schema and usage context fill in most gaps. Given no output schema, the description is fairly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that runId comes from chieflab_get_users_after_build or chiefmo_launch_product, and by clarifying when responseShape:'full' should be used ('only for debug/export'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enhancing parameter understanding.

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's function: 'Resume a ChiefLab launch loop from runId.' It specifies the main input (runId) and lists the possible next actions it handles (surface reviewUrl, execute an approved action, etc.). It also differentiates itself by noting it is an alias and by stating when to use it, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'USE WHEN an agent has already called chieflab_get_users_after_build / chiefmo_launch_product and needs the exact next action.' It also warns to use responseShape:'full' only for debug/export. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it lacks a complete when-not/alternatives specification.

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