analyze_launch_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'statically analyze,' 'never executes launch actions or commands,' and reveals parsing methods (AST, safe loading), giving strong transparency about safety and internal behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause adds value (returns, parsing method, non-execution), with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, its input (workspace-relative path, supported file types), what it returns, and its safety behavior. An output schema handles return details, so the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by clarifying 'relative_path' is 'workspace-relative' and applies to Python, XML, or YAML launch files. It doesn't detail path formatting, but for a single string parameter it provides sufficient semantic grounding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Statically analyze one workspace-relative Python, XML, or YAML ROS 2 launch file.' It also lists what it returns (nodes, includes, arguments, environment changes, processes), clearly distinguishing it from siblings that scan workspaces or inspect packages.

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 clearly implies the tool is for analyzing a single launch file, and the qualifier 'statically' signals a safe, non-executing analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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