get_o1_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read live' usefully implies a read-only, non-cached fetch, but it omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and whether the config is launch-specific or global.

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 waste, but it is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented optional parameter whose default behavior matters.

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, no annotations, and a 0%-documented parameter mean the description should explain what the configuration contains and how the optional enum narrows it. Neither is covered, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 description never mentions the single parameter launch_product. It does not explain the enum values (non-tax/tax/wsto) or what happens when the optional parameter is omitted, which is critical since required is empty.

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 resource (o1 Base launch configuration), so an agent knows it returns configuration rather than token or wallet data. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_my_launches or get_o1_token_details, so 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus other read tools in the set, and no mention of prerequisites such as a connected wallet or an active launch. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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