LaunchBuddy: Builder Tools and Launch Audits

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them: it implies a persisted report is produced, which explains the non-read-only, non-idempotent profile. It adds useful return-value context (scored gaps plus a durable report URL) but says nothing about authentication requirements, cost/rate limits, or what happens on repeated invocations.

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 short sentences with the outcome front-loaded and no redundant wording. The second sentence is just a documentation link, which is acceptable but adds little on its own.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (scored launch gaps plus a durable report URL). Combined with full schema coverage and informative annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with sibling disambiguation the only real omission.

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 only echoes the url parameter's constraint ("public launch URL") and adds no meaning for the bridge-injected platform and installId fields, though those are documented in the schema as automatically supplied.

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 ("Assess a public launch URL") and even states the return artifacts (scored launch gaps and a durable report URL). It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like audit_my_launch, reassess_launch, or verify_launch_audit, so an agent cannot fully resolve which assessment tool to pick from the description 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings named audit_my_launch, reassess_launch, verify_launch_audit, and get_assessment, the definition offers no routing logic for choosing among them.

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?

The annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description usefully adds that no generation, publishing, or account mutation occurs and that results come back as scores, evidence, fix packs, and resources. It never explains why readOnlyHint is false, i.e. whether an audit record is persisted or how repeated calls behave, which is the main behavioral question an agent would still have.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return shape, then the non-goals and a docs link. No sentence is redundant.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and a thin annotation set, the description covers the return categories and the safety scope well. It falls short on the optional 'checks' default behavior and on what side effects justify readOnlyHint=false, both of which an agent needs before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning. It clarifies that 'url' must be public and enumerates the three check categories matching the 'checks' enum, but it does not say what happens when 'checks' is omitted (only 'url' is required) or that at most three checks can be selected.

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 ('Audit a public URL') plus the scope of the audit ('launch, technical, and agent-readiness checks') and what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'assess_launch' or from 'reassess_launch' / 'verify_launch_audit', so an agent cannot pick between them from the text 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?

Usage is only implied: audit a public URL. The exclusions ('No account actions, provider generation, or publishing') describe what the tool will not do rather than when to call it, and no alternative such as assess_launch is named. Prerequisites (the URL must be publicly reachable) are only hinted at by the word 'public'.

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?

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds useful context that it avoids rescanning or trial creation, but it does not explain authentication requirements, claim-token expiry behavior, duplicate-claim handling, or side effects on the connected account.

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: the primary action is stated first, followed by the convenience constraint and a documentation link. The documentation URL is marginally useful but does not detract from clarity.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits what the tool returns, what happens to the assessment after saving, and how the claim-token lifecycle interacts with the connected account.

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 only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully as an expiring claim token returned by anonymous assess_launch. The description does not add syntax or handling details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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: saving an anonymous assessment to the connected account. It also distinguishes the action from re-running an assessment by saying "without scanning again or starting a trial," though it does not name a sibling tool 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?

The description implies usage when an anonymous assessment already exists and the user wants to persist it without scanning again or starting a trial. It does not state explicit prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling to use instead for related assessment operations.

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=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to clarify the side effects of the write path. Instead it says 'Create or read', which blurs whether the call mutates state, and 'cached' sits awkwardly with an explicitly non-idempotent tool by implying repeat calls return the same plan. 'Free' is a useful cost disclosure, but the agent still cannot tell what gets created, what happens on repeat invocation, or whether the result can go stale.

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 short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler or hedging. The documentation URL takes space without adding actionable guidance, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering parameters, the description should say what the returned plan looks like and how projectId is sourced. It supplies neither, so an agent has to guess at both the input's origin and the output's shape 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?

The schema has one required parameter, projectId, with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning and does not mention it at all. It never says whether projectId is a LaunchBuddy project id versus some other identifier, nor how to obtain one (list_projects is a sibling but is not referenced). With coverage this low, the parameter definition is effectively undocumented.

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 ('ranked launch work' plan) and a scope ('connected project'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it conflates two distinct operations in 'Create or read', so an agent cannot tell whether invoking it produces a new plan or returns an existing one. It also does nothing to separate itself from siblings like get_launch_todos, get_launch_resource, or assess_launch, which sound like they surface similar planning output.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no trigger conditions, no prerequisites, no named alternatives. The only routing aid is an external documentation URL, which pushes the decision onto an out-of-band resource rather than telling the agent here whether to call this instead of assess_launch or get_launch_todos.

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 say it is a non-destructive write, but the description adds meaning the annotations cannot: it never charges or publishes, and instead returns a resumable paid/approval handoff. That is exactly the safety context an agent needs before invoking a create tool in a monetized workflow. It stops short of explaining what a repeat call does, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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, no filler, with the non-charging/non-publishing guarantee front-loaded where it matters most. The documentation URL is the only element that displaces information that could have been inline.

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 create mutation with no output schema, the description does disclose the handoff return behavior, which is good. It omits prerequisites (does a recommendation need to be assessed first?), what asset type is produced, and repeat-call semantics, leaving real gaps for a write 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?

Only one parameter (projectId) at 0% schema coverage, so the description should clarify what the project scopes. It does not, though the parameter name and single-parameter surface keep the risk low.

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 "asset" is never defined (ad, page, email?) and "highest-priority" is left to inference. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling preview_recommended_asset, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 and no mention of preview_recommended_asset as the dry-run alternative, even though that sibling directly overlaps. The agent must infer that this is the commit step after a recommendation exists.

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?

The description frames a purely informational read ('Explain the current identity, trial, paid entitlement...'), yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, implying side effects or non-repeatable behavior that the text never explains. Beyond that mismatch, the description says nothing about whether calling it initiates or mutates trial state, what permissions are required, or how fresh the entitlement data is.

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 states the scope, followed by a doc link; there is no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for the information it promises, 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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place return values could be characterized, and it only lists four vague nouns without shape, keys, or units. The required projectId and the trial/entitlement side-effect question are both left unaddressed, which is thin for a tool whose output the agent must interpret.

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 single required parameter projectId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no signal about what a project ID means here or how to obtain one. With only one param and no schema documentation, the description needed to carry that burden and does not.

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 specific informational resource set: identity, trial, paid entitlement, and available capabilities. That scope is clearly distinct from the assessment/todo/resource siblings, so an agent can tell it is the account-state lookup. The verb 'Explain' is softer than 'Get'/'Describe' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 call this versus siblings such as list_projects or get_assessment, and no stated prerequisites or call ordering. The only extra pointer is a documentation URL, which is not usable guidance at selection time.

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=false and idempotentHint=false, yet the description frames this purely as a "Read." An agent cannot tell whether calling this consumes, advances, or otherwise mutates the intent state, nor whether the "resumable" state changes after retrieval. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description resolves none of this tension.

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 short sentences with the functional statement front-loaded; the second is only a support link, which is useful rather than filler. No redundancy in the body text.

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?

Placeholder.

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%: neither projectId nor intentId is documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about their meaning, scope, or format. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving two required identifiers opaque.

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 ("Read") and enumerates the resource domain it returns: "resumable payment, approval, render, and verification state." No sibling tool competes with this purpose, and an agent can tell it is a state-retrieval call, though the core concept "action intent" is never defined.

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?

"after a web handoff" implies the triggering context, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisite that a projectId/intentId must already exist, and no statement about when this should be skipped.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond them: only *public* assessments are readable, which tells the agent private/unclaimed ones will not resolve. It does not say what happens on a missing or unauthorized scan id.

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 short sentences with the core action and the keying parameter front-loaded, followed by a documentation pointer. Nothing is padded, though the link sentence adds little to an agent that cannot follow it in-band.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, but there is no output schema and the description never characterizes what a 'saved assessment' contains or its shape. For a retrieval tool that is the main missing piece; everything else an agent needs to call it is present.

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% and scanId has no description, so the description must carry the meaning; it does confirm scanId identifies a saved assessment scan. It still omits where the id comes from (e.g., returned by assess_launch) and its expected format, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a saved public LaunchBuddy assessment') plus the keying parameter ('by scan id'). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_assessment or assess_launch by making clear this is a retrieval of an already-saved artifact, not a new run.

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 only usage cue is the implied 'you must have a scan id', with no statement of when to prefer this over reassess_launch, claim_assessment, or verify_launch_audit. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative 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?

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the resource is public and that canonical URL and channel availability may be returned, but it does not cover not-found behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized: one front-loaded sentence states the operation and scope, followed by a documentation reference. There is no redundant wording or restatement 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 simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is close to sufficient. It mentions some return content, but it omits how to source the stable ID and what happens when the resource is not found, leaving gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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 and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it. It says 'stable ID' but gives no format, example, or guidance on where to obtain that ID, leaving the parameter meaning largely implicit.

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: 'Read one public launch resource by its stable ID.' The phrase 'one ... by stable ID' implicitly distinguishes it from search/list siblings such as search_launch_resources, 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?

The description implies this is the lookup-by-ID tool rather than the search tool, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus search_launch_resources, nor does it mention prerequisites such as already having a stable ID.

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?

The description frames the operation as a pure "Read", but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description does nothing to reconcile that (no mention of side effects, connection/sync behavior, or permissions). Beyond the verb, the only behavioral detail is a link to external documentation rather than an in-description statement.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but the second sentence is a bare documentation link that consumes description budget without conveying actionable information. Two sentences total, so there is no structural bloat, just low-value content.

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 one required identifier, no output schema, and a non-read-only annotation profile, the description leaves the key gaps open: what projectId must be, how the checklist is represented when returned, and what "connected" implies. "Completion progress" is the only hint at return shape, which is not enough.

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 there is one required parameter (projectId) that the description never mentions: no format, no expected source (e.g., from list_projects), no error behavior for an invalid or disconnected project. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 specific verb and resource ("Read the connected project checklist") and adds the returned payload ("its completion progress"), which is more precise than the bare name get_launch_todos. It never names a sibling such as update_launch_todo or list_projects, so it does not explicitly differentiate read-only retrieval from mutation or from project discovery.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call update_launch_todo to change a todo, list_projects to discover a projectId, or under what conditions this tool should be preferred over get_launch_resource. The only pointer is a documentation URL, which defers the guidance rather than providing 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no result size, ordering, pagination, or whether an empty account yields an empty list; the documentation URL is a pointer, not disclosed 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?

One short purpose sentence followed by a documentation link — front-loaded and free of filler. The link line earns marginal space but is the weakest element since it carries no inline information.

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 output schema, the description must convey what a 'project' record looks like and roughly how many come back; it says nothing about return shape. For a zero-parameter list tool the calling mechanics are safe, but the agent still cannot anticipate the response structure.

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 to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist in 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List ... LaunchBuddy projects') plus a scope qualifier ('connected account's'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighbors such as get_launch_resource or search_launch_resources, which could plausibly be confused for resource discovery.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 15 sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry point for enumerating projects.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a pure read and is not idempotent. The description usefully clarifies that preview avoids provider spend, but it does not explain whether preview persists state or what side effects the non-read-only annotation implies.

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 short sentences with the core constraint front-loaded. The documentation URL adds little for an agent already given the tool, but the wording itself is efficient.

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 preview tool, the description covers the main cost-avoidance behavior. It falls short on explaining projectId, what a preview produces, and how the non-read-only annotation squares with 'preview,' leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 one required parameter, projectId, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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-resource pair ('Preview the highest-priority asset brief') and adds the key qualifier 'without starting provider spend.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_recommended_asset by framing preview as a no-spend option, though it never names that sibling.

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 when to choose preview over a spend-incurring creation path, but no explicit alternative is named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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 flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it updates in place rather than creating a new project — but it never explains what is overwritten (prior score or assessment history) or that a network fetch of the live URL occurs, leaving the destructive annotation unexplained.

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 short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the documentation pointer trailing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is a URL pointer rather than substantive content.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description promises a score comparison but never says what the response contains (old vs new score, delta) or what the reassessment replaces. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 schema documents 'url' as an optional replacement HTTPS URL but leaves 'projectId' bare. The description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the undocumented required projectId.

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 ('Reassess a connected project') and adds a distinguishing scope note ('without creating a second project'), which separates it from assess_launch. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'After changes' implies the trigger condition for using this tool, and the no-duplicate-project clause hints at why to prefer it over a fresh assessment. However, it never names assess_launch or states when a new assessment is preferable, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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?

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation. The description adds a useful domain caveat that channel presence never proves eligibility, supported submission, or publication, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose result format, ranking behavior, or how results are limited.

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 front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence states the purpose, the second adds an important caveat, and the third points to documentation. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be more specific about parameters without becoming bloated.

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 search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified. It does not explain how to choose a source, what query matches, what limit does, or what the results look like, so an agent has significant gaps when invoking it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and four optional parameters, the description only clarifies the idea of a "gap" and loosely gestures at resource types. It does not explain the source enum values (launchbuddy, launchready, agentready, swarm), the meaning of query, or how limit controls result size, so most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 set: finding public LaunchBuddy guides, free tools, skills, and launch channels. The scope is narrowed to "a specific gap," so the agent can tell what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_launch_resource, which keeps this 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?

Usage is only implied by "for a specific gap"; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_launch_resource. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name and purpose alone.

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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that no provider-side work is kicked off — but with destructiveHint=true it should explain what makes this destructive (e.g., overwriting notes/owner) and whether omitted fields are preserved. It also says "owned" without stating the authorization requirement.

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 short sentences with the core action and the key behavioral constraint front-loaded; the trailing documentation URL is a compact pointer rather than padding. 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: partial-update behavior, permitted status transitions, ownership/auth requirements, and the meaning of "provider work" are all absent.

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 and projectId have no descriptions, and the status enum values are undocumented. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no mention of partial-update semantics, whether status transitions are constrained, or how notes/owner are merged — so it does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update one owned launch task") and adds a scope qualifier ("one owned") that tells an agent this targets a single existing todo rather than a list. It is distinguishable from get_launch_todos, but it never names which sibling performs the alternative operation that does start provider 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?

The clause "without starting provider work" implies a boundary — use this for pure metadata edits rather than anything that triggers external work — but it never states when to choose this over get_launch_todos, create_recommended_asset, or the other siblings, and it doesn't define what "provider work" means. Usage must be largely inferred.

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?

The annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is already structured. The description adds genuine behavioral detail by saying unavailable checks are preserved as 'unobservable', which tells the agent how results are reported. But with readOnlyHint=false it never says what is written or persisted, and openWorldHint=true is never elaborated with network/cost implications.

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 the constraint and prerequisite. The documentation link is the only element that could be seen as filler, though for an open-world tool it is a reasonable escape hatch.

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, and the description never sketches what a recheck returns — what 'native findings' or an 'unobservable' check looks like in the response. Inputs are adequately covered for a two-parameter tool, but the unexplained 'unobservable' concept and absent return shape leave a real gap for an open-world, non-idempotent 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 coverage is 0% and 'previous_audit' is an untyped nested object, so the description carries the burden here. It does add real meaning: the second parameter must be the original audit JSON and the URL must match it. It still leaves the shape and required keys of that audit JSON completely unspecified.

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: 'Recheck the native findings from a saved audit.' That is far more precise than the title, and 'native findings' plus 'saved audit' narrows the scope. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling 'reassess_launch', which an agent could easily confuse with a re-run of an existing audit.

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 gives a concrete usage window ('after changes are live') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires original audit JSON for the same URL'), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it — notably it never routes the agent away from 'reassess_launch' when no prior audit JSON exists.

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