lemon_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotence and explains that headless mode runs with no window via --serve. It does not describe side effects such as opening the .flp file, permissions required, failure modes, or whether the call blocks until the socket is available.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the primary action. The parameter explanations are compact and each sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 launch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action, idempotence, and both parameters. It leaves some gaps around return behavior and interaction with status-checking siblings, but an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, and it does: project is an .flp file to open, and headless runs with no window via --serve. It does not add path constraints or details about how project is handled in headless mode, but the core semantics are covered.

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 and resource: start Lemon Studio listening on the control socket. It also clarifies idempotent behavior, so an agent can understand the core operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this launch tool from siblings such as lemon_status or get_project_state.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when Lemon Studio needs to be started. The note that it does nothing if already listening helps avoid redundant calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, such as checking lemon_status first or using get_project_state after launch.

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