quest_launch_benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive force-stop behavior, the repeated launches (N times), and the return values (per-run timings and min/median/max). It also adds a max of 5 runs constraint. It doesn't mention permissions or post-conditions but covers the key behaviors.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output details and use case. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the return values, and the intended use case. The force-stop behavior is explicitly noted. It doesn't describe device_id semantics, but that's a standard parameter across sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'N times (max 5)' which maps to the runs parameter but doesn't explicitly name it. package_name and device_id are not described, though their purposes are inferable from context. The description adds a max constraint absent from the schema.

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 benchmarks an app's cold-start time via force-stop and timed launch, with specific output details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_launch (simple launch) and quest_performance (broader metrics).

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 explicitly states the use case: 'useful for measuring startup optimizations,' which gives clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, like using quest_launch for a single launch or quest_stop alone.

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