vna_launch

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the software is launched and a socket server is enabled, but does not describe side effects like process creation, potential installation requirements, or what happens if the software is already running. The 'wait_for_ready' and 'timeout' parameters hint at behavior, but the description itself stays at a high level.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and key qualifiers. It is concise and avoids unnecessary detail, ensuring the core purpose is immediately clear.

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 tool is a launcher with no output schema and five parameters, the description provides the essential idea but lacks context about return behavior, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like vna_connect or vna_discover. However, the parameter defaults and descriptions fill much of the operational context, making it minimally viable.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults. The description adds minimal extra semantic value, only mentioning the socket server enabled concept which loosely relates to the 'port' parameter. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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' and the resource 'VNA software', with a specific qualifier 'with socket server enabled' and a platform constraint 'Windows only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vna_connect or vna_discover, which are about connecting/discovering rather than launching.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the 'Windows only' platform restriction. There is no mention of using it before other VNA tools or prerequisites, so the agent is left to infer timing and context.

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