list_launches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states the scope ('running roslaunch/mon launch processes'). This is sufficient for a simple query tool, though it doesn't mention side effects or prerequisites, which are not expected.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains only essential information.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type and running state, and the output schema covers return values, so no additional detail is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('running roslaunch/mon launch processes'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_topics, list_nodes) by specifying the launch process resource rather than topics or nodes.

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 context of use is clear: it lists running launch processes, which is appropriate when inspecting active launches. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives, but the resource type is distinct enough that a user understands when to use it. No exclusions are stated.

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