launch_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key side effects: it copies the .bsp into the map directory, starts the engine, and reports engine output if startup fails. This is substantial transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 only three sentences, all of which earn their place: the core action, the side-effect behavior, and the essential prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow, prerequisite, and failure-reporting behavior. It does not describe the exact success return value, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the main runtime flow.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds context about the .bsp vs .map distinction but does not need to repeat parameter details; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action, 'Launch a compiled map in a Quake engine', and clarifies the tool's role versus compilation with 'Compile the map first: the engine loads the .bsp, not the .map.' This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like compile_map or render_preview.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after compilation, because the engine loads the .bsp rather than the .map. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite context is clear.

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