launch_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by covering the environment-variable override, Steam app fallback, waiting for responsiveness, and the warning-on-already-running edge case. It could also mention timeout or failure behavior, but the core externally visible behavior is well disclosed.

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 only three sentences and each one earns its place: the launch-and-wait action, the launch mechanism, and the already-running edge case. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is nearly complete: it covers launch behavior, launch mechanism, waiting, and the restart edge case. It lacks explicit failure or timeout behavior and success return details, but these are minor for a game-launching tool with sibling tools like wait_for_game.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by tying restart to the warning behavior, which the schema does not state, and vanilla is adequately covered by its schema description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Launch' with the resource 'Broforce' and adds the waiting-for-responsiveness behavior, making it immediately clear what operation is performed. The scope is distinct from sibling tools like stop_game and wait_for_game.

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?

It clearly explains the game-already-running condition and how restart changes behavior, giving useful context for when to invoke the tool with or without restart. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as stop_game or wait_for_game, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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