launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful trait that starting is conditional ('if needed'), implying no duplicate launch. But it says nothing about blocking vs. returning immediately, what happens on an invalid or missing path, or whether a window is focused. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, which keeps this at a 3 rather than lower.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the format detail correctly relegated to parentheses. No filler. Slightly dense with nested parentheticals, which costs the fifth point.

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 launcher with an output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the core action and file formats. It leaves open the null-path behavior and the blocking/return behavior, which an agent needs to sequence follow-up calls (e.g., to `status` or `render`). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `path` parameter. It does add format semantics (.svg primary; .pdf/.ai/.eps also accepted), which the schema lacks entirely. But `path` is nullable with default null, and the description never explains what omitting it does — a meaningful gap for the only parameter.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair – 'Start Inkscape ... and open `path` in it' – and even enumerates the file formats accepted (.svg/.pdf/.ai/.eps). The bare name 'launch' would be ambiguous without it, but the description resolves that. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like `status` or `window`, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

'if needed' implies the tool is safe to call idempotently when Inkscape may already be running, which is useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over `status` (presumably to check whether it is already running) or `window`, and it doesn't address what happens when `path` is omitted. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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