run_mission

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

The description mentions it returns a PID, implying process launch, but does not disclose potential side effects, blocking behavior, or dependencies (e.g., AFSIM installation). With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 extremely concise: three lines covering purpose, parameter, and return value. Every part is essential and front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately covers a simple launcher use case but omits important details like when to use this vs other run tools and whether AFSIM must be installed.

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 description explains the single parameter 'scenario_file' as an optional path, which the schema lacks (0% coverage). This adds necessary meaning beyond the structured input.

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 launches the AFSIM Mission Planner, a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_simulation, run_warlock, etc., which focus on running other AFSIM components.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_simulation, run_mystic). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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