launch_tui

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the parameters. It does not say a session is spawned and must be closed with close_session, whether the call blocks, what happens on timeout, or whether sessions persist across calls. Only the mode distinction (buffer = position/cursor aware) hints at runtime 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?

A single purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list — front-loaded correctly with no padding. Minor waste in restating trivially named parameters ('command: The command to launch'), but nothing obstructive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, as a mutation-ish tool that spawns a process with no annotations, the description should cover session lifecycle, error/timeout behavior, and the prerequisite relationship to close_session — none of which appear.

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 does the documenting: it explains all five parameters, gives units for timeout ('seconds'), a format for dimensions ('WIDTHxHEIGHT'), and semantics for mode. This is a genuine addition over the bare schema, though the entries for command and session_id largely restate their 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch a TUI application for testing'), which clearly identifies it as the session-creation entry point among siblings like send_keys, capture_screen, and close_session. It does not explicitly name those siblings or spell out the relationship, so it stops short of 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, but the mode guidance ('stream' for CLI tools, 'buffer' for full TUIs) implicitly tells the agent which scenario each configuration serves. Usage is implied rather than explicit, and the obvious prerequisite (call this before send_keys/expect_text) is left to inference.

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