crosspad_run

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false — the description carries the transparency burden and handles it well. It discloses the background-spawn behavior, the duplicate-refusal logic, the force=true override, the build prerequisite failure mode, and the platform limitation. The PC-only constraint is particularly valuable context.

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 sentences cover purpose, return value, refusal logic, override, failure mode, and platform constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler. Front-loaded with the core action and return contract.

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 background-launch tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the launch contract, duplicate semantics, override, build prerequisite, and platform constraint. The return format is handled by the output schema. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters (force, platform) are already fully documented with their defaults and meanings in the schema. The description adds marginal value by referencing force=true in the duplicate-refusal context, but the schema already handles the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (launch the built simulator binary in background) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's PC-only, returns pid+exe_path, and must follow crosspad_build. The return values and prerequisite are explicitly stated.

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?

Explicitly states when it fails (binary not built — call crosspad_build first), when it refuses (duplicate already running — use force=true), and platform constraint (PC-only, IDF firmware doesn't run on host). It also names the sibling crosspad_build as the prerequisite, providing clear when-to-use guidance and exclusions.

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