launch_game

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that a permitted launch opens an independent activity window, that closing/failing that viewer never controls gameplay, and exactly what it displays. It also states the durable operation_id dedup semantics and enumerates what the tool will NOT do (no game clicks, pending-action deletion, paths, commands, process IDs).

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?

Extremely dense and run-on, mixing launch behavior, window policy, timeout, dedup, and negative constraints into long clauses. Much is load-bearing, but the front-loading is weak and phrases like "No game clicks, pending-action deletion, paths, commands or process IDs" are cryptic fragments rather than clean structure.

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, and the description still covers the already-running/UNKNOWN branches, the lifecycle of the activity viewer, the timeout bound, and dedup behavior. Reasonably complete for a launch tool, though the failure/timeout outcome path is not described.

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 must compensate, and it does for both parameters: timeout_s is bounded ("0-30 seconds") and operation_id's dedup/query-only semantics are spelled out. This adds material meaning the bare schema lacks.

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+resource (launch the game) tied to a concrete Steam AppID and defines the core behavior "launch normally and wait for MCP." It implicitly contrasts with the already-running path, but does not explicitly name the obvious sibling (close_game) to disambiguate.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for one branch ("If already running, verify/show its window; UNKNOWN allows only restoring that window") and notes the dedup query path. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like run_plan, wait_until_ready, or recover_lost_session, so selection 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.