get_launcher_clients

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns all such clients, implying a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as performance implications, ordering, or error conditions. The description adds context but lacks deeper behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient with no extraneous words, providing maximum information in minimal space.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the necessary context: what is returned (launcher clients), why it matters (proactive monitoring), and how to use it (identify accounts needing engagement monitoring). It is fully complete for this simple 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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the concept of 'launcher clients' and the importance of monitoring, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 returns 'all clients delivered via Content Controller Launcher (i.e. clients with NO LMS of their own)'. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (get_client_health, get_lowest_performing_courses) by focusing on a different subset and use case.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to identify which accounts need CMR-side engagement monitoring', providing a clear use case. It also explains the context of proactive monitoring. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings explicitly.

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