run_wizard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool launches a GUI (blocking/interactive) and returns a PID, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, system state changes, or dependencies like AFSIM installation, leaving moderate gaps.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence purpose, then a clean parameter table and return type. Every piece of information is relevant and no filler. This front-loads the core action efficiently.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return structure (success + PID). The existence of an output schema (not shown) partially offsets the need for return details. However, it could mention that the call is blocking or that AFSIM must be installed, making it nearly 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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% coverage (no property descriptions). The description adds meaning: 'Optional path to open in Wizard', clarifying the param's role beyond the schema's type and default. This adds value, though it is brief.

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 'Launch[es] the AFSIM Wizard (GUI scenario builder)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_mission' and 'run_simulation' by emphasizing the GUI builder aspect, indicating a different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_scenario' for programmatic creation, 'run_simulation' for execution). No when-not-to-use or context is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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