native_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: it does not close running apps, it can return restartRequired when the profile is in use, and it explicitly warns that launch completion is not injection verification. Authorization/review requirements are also flagged, though the mechanics of authorization and any wait/polling behavior are not described.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints and caveats; each sentence carries distinct information. Some phrasing is jargon-dense but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description usefully names one return field (restartRequired) and a key caveat, but it omits any explanation of the required expectedRevision parameter and the rest of the launch result surface, leaving gaps an agent would want covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter expectedRevision is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains that it is a required revision/version guard or how a mismatch is handled. The reference to a "selected bundle" and a "library profile" describes implicit state rather than the actual parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb (launch) with a specific resource (installed signed Codex isolated copy running the selected bundle under a dedicated library profile), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It implicitly contrasts with native_build/native_select_build by depending on an already-selected bundle, but never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"Only run reviewed scripts within user-authorized site scope" gives a constraint and the mention of "the selected bundle" hints that native_select_build must run first, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement nor any named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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