generate_launch_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions versioning and a specific output directory, which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not clarify whether files are overwritten, permissions required, or side effects on the system.

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 relatively concise: two short paragraphs and a bullet list. The bullet list is redundant with the schema but does not significantly bloat it. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 2 required, no enums, and an output schema exists, the description adequately states the return value. However, it lacks details on versioning behavior, naming conventions, or error handling, which would be helpful for a file generation 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and types from the schema without adding new meaning (e.g., 'name: Name for the launch file' is identical to the schema). No additional semantic value.

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 'Generate a ROS2 launch file for AI development.' It specifies the verb (generate) and resource (ROS2 launch file), and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_custom_node or start_launch by focusing solely on launch file generation.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_custom_node or start_launch. It mentions templates but lacks context on when to choose this over other generation or launch tools.

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