enoch_launch_followup

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

Description only adds the dry_run default. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive nature, but no details on side effects when dry_run=false, such as resource creation or state changes.

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?

Extremely short at 2 sentences, but this conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and complex behavior.

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?

No output schema and zero parameter descriptions make the description inadequate. It fails to specify return values, error conditions, or when dry_run should be toggled.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. Only dry_run is mentioned (with default). project_id, requested_by, and max_followup_depth are unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Launch' and resource 'the next bounded follow-up candidate', with a specific default behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other actions like intake, dispatch, or review.

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. With 40+ sibling tools, agents lack context to choose this over related ones like enoch_dispatch or enoch_intake.

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