skypilot_cluster_launch

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

Annotations are sparse (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), providing minimal behavioral context. The description adds valuable detail: it explains that fast=True skips cloud availability checks, describes wait_for autostop idling semantics, mentions optimize_target, and states that the tool returns a request_id with instructions to poll. This is significant behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error handling, or what happens on failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then in a series of sentences details key parameters and return behavior. It avoids unnecessary fluff. No major structural issues, though it could be organized with bullet-like separation for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, open-world operation), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action, some important parameters, and the return mechanism, but it omits guidance on many parameters, prerequisites, and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of optimize_target, fast, and wait_for, and mentions task_yaml. However, it does not explain other parameters like down, dryrun, no_setup, cluster_name, retry_until_up, clone_disk_from, or idle_minutes_to_autostop. With 11 parameters and only 3-4 covered, the description adds some value but leaves many parameters undocumented.

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 states a clear dual purpose: 'Launch a new cluster or submit a task to an existing cluster,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, the tool name itself is 'cluster_launch' and the description adds the task-submission facet, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like skypilot_managed_job_launch or skypilot_pool_apply. Distinguishing from those would require more context.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the basic purpose. The description mentions some parameter effects (optimize_target, fast, wait_for) but doesn't say when to choose this tool over alternatives like skypilot_managed_job_launch or skypilot_pool_apply, nor does it state prerequisites such as authentication or cloud credentials.

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