test_launch_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it mentions dry-run and validation, it fails to specify side effects when dry_run=False (e.g., whether nodes are actually started or stopped), resource requirements (e.g., requires a running ROS environment), or whether the operation is destructive. The description is incomplete for safe tool invocation.

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 reasonably concise: a one-line purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids verbose explanations, but the 'Args' section duplicates schema information. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema (inferred from context), the description need not detail return structure, and it provides a brief 'Returns' line. However, the tool's complexity (testing with optional start/stop) and lack of annotation coverage suggest more context is needed, such as whether a successful test guarantees system stability or what state the system should be in beforehand. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description's 'Args' section largely repeats the schema (file_path as 'Path to launch file', dry_run as 'If True, only validate without starting'). It adds the default value for dry_run, but that is already in the schema. No additional semantic nuance beyond the schema is provided, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 tool's purpose: testing a launch file with a dry-run option (validating syntax without fully starting nodes) and optionally attempting to start/stop. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'validate_launch_file' which likely only validates syntax without the start/stop option. However, the phrase 'optionally attempts to start/stop' is ambiguous regarding whether the tool actually starts nodes when dry_run=False.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_launch_file', 'start_launch', or 'stop_launch'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it fits into a workflow. This leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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