launch_viewer

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

The description goes beyond the lack of annotations by disclosing that it spawns a background process, returns URL and PID, requires an optional package, and runs a long-lived web server. It does not cover potential side effects like resource consumption or manual termination necessity.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, front-loading the main action. It is concise but includes all necessary details without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: input types, process behavior, return values (URL/PID), and prerequisites. It could mention error scenarios or stopping the process more explicitly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that dataset_id_or_path can be a loaded dataset ID or file path, and provides default values for port and host. It adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and defaults.

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 'launch the cellxlineage interactive web viewer on a dataset', specifying a unique verb (launch) and resource (viewer on dataset). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plot_tree by focusing on interactive viewing rather than static plots.

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 usage for interactive visualization and notes the need for the cellxlineage package and that it starts a long-running server. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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