get_launch_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies the tool as an informational/read-only resource ('Return how to call launch_app') and adds context about the focus on the script parameter and timing (before launch_app). It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the wording implies it, which is sufficient for a simple help tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second gives clear conditional usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity, zero parameters, and existing output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and when to call it. Since the output schema exists, the description need not explain 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds useful context by referencing the 'script parameter' of launch_app, which is the key uncertainty it resolves. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds value beyond the empty 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's function: 'Return how to call launch_app — especially the script parameter.' It uses a specific verb 'Return' with a resource ('how to call launch_app') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like launch_app itself by focusing on guidance rather than execution.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before launch_app when you are unsure which entry .py to use or whether script should include a subfolder path.' This is clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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