arc_launchpads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns about NO_DATA until an hourly reading exists and states that partial windows yield NO_DATA rather than false zeros—an important data-availability caveat. It does not mention read-only semantics, but the nature of the analytics tool implies it. This adds meaningful context beyond a bare statement.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Launchpad concentration on Arc over the recent window') followed by a compact list of metrics and the critical NO_DATA caveat. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the key data-availability behavior. It does not mention update frequency, units, or how to interpret HHI thresholds, but those are not strictly required for correct invocation. The NO_DATA note addresses the most common pitfall. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools applies. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter detail.

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's function: it reports launchpad concentration metrics (HHI, pools created, v3/v4 counts, deployer callers, per-launchpad stats) for Arc over a recent window. The verb 'concentration' and the explicit metric list make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like arc_health or arc_lp_apr.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it returns and the NO_DATA condition, not the scenarios where this tool is preferred or avoided. An agent must infer its purpose from the metric list without knowing when to choose it over siblings.

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