rad_launch

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior: args are passed as a list with no shell, and execution stops at entry by default. However, it omits session prerequisites, timeout behavior, working-directory handling, and what debug_subprocesses 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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the core action first and then supplies important execution semantics.

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 seven-parameter launch tool with zero schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required debug session, timeout implications, working directory, or subprocess debugging, though the output schema does relieve pressure to describe return values.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only args (a list, no shell) and the default stop_at_entry behavior, leaving program, session_id, timeout, working_directory, and debug_subprocesses semantically 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 verb and resource: launch a local x64 executable with PDBs. It implicitly contrasts with rad_attach by using 'launch' rather than 'attach', but does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify the boundary.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus rad_attach or other session-based tools. The only hint is 'Stops at entry by default', which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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