get_launch_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns help text rather than performing an action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether it queries a static local file, calls an API, or what the exact help content includes.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded: first sentence immediately states the tool's output, second sentence gives the when-to-use guidance. No superfluous 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?

Given the tool takes no parameters and simply returns help, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. The only gap is not specifying the return format, but this is a help-returning tool, so the completeness bar is lower.

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 and the schema already confirms that (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what the tool will help with (script parameter, subfolder path), which is enough for agents to know they need no additional arguments.

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 it returns instructions on how to call launch_app, specifically covering the script parameter and subfolder path handling. It does not fully distinguish from other get_* tools, but its focus on launch_app makes its purpose recognizable.

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 explicitly says to call this before launch_app when unsure about entry .py or subfolder path. It provides a concrete condition for use, though it does not mention when not to use it or name a direct alternative.

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