public_launch_preflight

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. The term 'preflight' suggests a check but is not confirmed.

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 very short (two sentences plus argument line) with no redundant information. It could benefit from a clearer structure, but it is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential behavioral context (side effects, return value nature) and does not explain how the tool fits into the workflow. The agent lacks information to decide when to invoke it.

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?

The input schema has no description for the parameter (0% coverage), but the description adds context: 'target_contributors: public campaign target contributor count used in recheck commands.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses vague terms like 'direct release runbook' and 'closing the public TianGong growth loop,' which do not clearly specify the tool's action or output. No verb indicating what operation is performed (e.g., check, validate, execute).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description offers no comparison to other similar tools like public_growth_report or public_install_command.

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