Launch film looks and scene types

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. The description adds that this is launch-film 0.2.0 data local to this machine. It does not add behavioral detail such as result shape or the job_id fallback, though those are partly covered by schema fields and the output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Parenthetical clauses carry the topic distinctions efficiently. The version and machine note is compact, though slightly incidental to tool selection.

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, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to select and call the tool. The wait_seconds/job_id behavior is left to the schema, which is reasonable. A minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on result shape or when a job_id is returned.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description nonetheless adds meaning to the topic enum by explaining that 'looks' returns looks with suitable topics and 'types' returns scene types with their fields. That is useful semantic detail beyond the terse enum values.

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: it lists launch-film's looks and what each suits, or its scene types and their fields. The two topic branches are clearly distinguished. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling pipeline tools like plan_launch_film or make_launch_film, but the reference-data nature is evident.

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 clear usage contexts: picking a look or editing film.json. That tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is not fully explicit about routing versus sibling tools.

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