launch_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only discloses that executables must be allow-listed and that injection occurs. It omits whether the call blocks until the target exits, what happens on a non-allow-listed binary, permission requirements, or how the launched process relates to the capture session.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key constraint (allow-listed) is placed early. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter process-launch tool.

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, but for a complex, unannotated five-parameter launcher the definition should still cover parameter meaning and launch/mutation behavior. As written it leaves the agent with critical gaps before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description names none of them. The meanings of arguments, api_validation, working_directory, and hook_into_children are entirely absent from both structured fields and prose, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pair (launch/inject) and resource (an allow-listed .exe through qrenderdoc/RenderDoc), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the capture-inspection siblings, but its purpose is far enough from open_capture/list_actions that an agent can identify it.

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 'allow-listed' qualifier gives an implicit prerequisite, but there is no statement of when to use this versus open_capture or close_capture, no note on whether it should precede capture analysis, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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