launch_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does so well: it discloses the file-path requirement, the gdb-registered-session return behavior, and the non-gdb return behavior (state, return code, log tail). It does not mention potential side effects like background processes or persistence, but the major behavioral branches are covered.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and purposeful: purpose, path constraint, and the two return scenarios. No fluff, no repetition of the schema, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 description explains the main behavior and return cases, but with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, significant context is missing. An agent still does not know how to set the working directory, environment, distro, or attach timeout. It is adequate for the core use case but incomplete for a 7-parameter tool.

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 for explaining seven parameters. It only explains 'script' (absolute path, no inline code). Parameters like cwd, env, distro, python, args, and attach_timeout_ms are left completely undocumented, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.

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 clearly states the verb ('Launch'), the resource ('a Python ... script inside WSL2'), and the key constraint that the script must be a file path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like launch_gdb by focusing on Python/pwntools scripts and describing both gdb-attached and non-gdb execution paths.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate: for Python scripts in WSL2, typically pwntools. It also gives a firm exclusion: inline code is not supported, and requires absolute Windows/WSL paths. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use execute_command for arbitrary commands', but the context is sufficient.

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