everything_tui_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool launches an interactive TUI but doesn't disclose potential side effects such as blocking until exit, requiring user input, or modifying state beyond opening the interface.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.

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 simple launcher with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could mention that the TUI is interactive and may take over the terminal, which would make it more complete.

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 fully describes the 'mode' parameter with an enum and default value, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 identifies the action ('Launch') and the resource ('Terminal User Interface'), and mentions interactive project management and search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like everything_search and everything_search_advanced, which are likely non-interactive search functions.

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 implies this tool is for interactive use, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it instead of the sibling search tools or provide exclusions. Users are left to infer that it's for launching a TUI rather than performing a one-off search.

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