launch_xways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions launch conditions, not potential side effects like process blocking, resource consumption, or error handling. Critical behavioral traits are omitted.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and critical details. It could be expanded with parameter summaries and usage context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 8 parameters (1 required), no parameter descriptions, and no annotation, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain output or how parameters interact. A more complete description is needed for an 8-param 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. Parameters like xt_params_json are unclear. The description does nothing to clarify parameter meaning, leaving the agent to rely solely on names.

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 launches X-Ways, which is a specific action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like headless_xways_reference or run_* commands, which could also involve launching. A more explicit distinction would improve clarity.

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 two prerequisites (env variable and confirm flag) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage only when these conditions are met, but missing comparative context.

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