launch_interactive_service

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it waits for node allocation (blocking behavior) and produces a specific output artifact (the exact local SSH bridge command). It still omits resource consumption, time-limit implications, and whether the launch is cancellable.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the purpose and then the blocking/output behavior, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the task, though it could have spent those same words clarifying parameters given the low schema coverage.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but with 13 parameters and 0% description coverage the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot know what minutes, time_limit, local_port, or confirm do, which is a serious gap for a tool that provisions compute resources.

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% across 13 parameters, so the schema carries almost no semantic load. The description only hints at the "service" field via its examples and says nothing about port, minutes, time_limit, cpus_per_task, gpus_per_node, spack_packages, local_port, or the other numeric/resource parameters. This leaves most parameters undocumented in both structured data and prose.

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 ("Lance") and resource ("service web sur un noeud de calcul") and lists concrete service examples (JupyterLab, TensorBoard, vLLM, MLflow). It also explains the side effect of returning an SSH bridge command, which clarifies the operation. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, spawn_remote_workspace.

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 implies usage through the service examples and the note that the node must be allocated, giving an agent situational context. But it never says when to pick this tool over spawn_remote_workspace or other workspace tools, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit allocation wait.

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