rew_launch_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main side effect (starting an executable) and the verification step (API readiness on port 4735), but omits details like failure behavior, blocking/timeout, or cleanup. It provides minimal but useful behavioral context, though not comprehensive.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the primary action and including the key verification outcome. No unnecessary words, and the structure is efficient. It earns a high score for parsimony.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It omits what 'plan' contains, how confirmation is represented in parameters, and what happens if verification fails. The tool's complexity (launching an external process) demands more detail than provided.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'plan' (an object) is completely unexplained, 'confirm' and 'confirmationToken' are only loosely hinted at via 'explicit confirmation'. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 action ('Start the exact discovered REW executable') and the follow-up verification ('verify that the API becomes ready on port 4735'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling list shows execution tools are distinct from planning tools (e.g., rew_launch_plan). However, 'exact discovered' is vague without prior context, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other execution siblings.

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 phrase 'after explicit confirmation' implies a prerequisite (likely a confirmation token), suggesting this should be invoked only after prior approval. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing rew_launch_plan or rew_install_discover. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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