tv_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the EXTERNAL_SIDE_EFFECT (spawning a process, optionally terminating existing instances) and a prerequisite limitation (TradingView must be installed). It stops short of stating idempotency or expected startup latency/return behavior, so not quite perfect for an un-annotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly delimited WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS blocks. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a two-optional-parameter launch tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the trigger, side effects, and the installation prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (port, kill_existing) are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description echoes 'target port' and 'terminates existing instances' but adds no format, range, or default nuance 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?

States a specific verb (Launch) and resource (TradingView Desktop) and immediately narrows scope with the CDP/remote-debugging detail on a target port. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tv_health_check and tv_discover, which check or locate rather than spawn the app.

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 an explicit trigger condition: call when tv_health_check fails because TradingView is not running, naming the sibling that precedes it. Nothing about when to invoke 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.