katana_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: it opens the app with a debug port (a side effect on the environment) and it blocks until the patch is loaded (synchronous, long-running). It does not say what happens on failure or timeout, whether it can attach to an already-open non-debug instance, or how success is signalled.

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?

A single sentence whose every clause carries information: the target app, the debug-port mode, the conditional relaunch guard, the dialog answer, and the wait-for-patch completion criterion. It is front-loaded with the action and has no filler.

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 schema is empty and there is no output schema or annotation, so the description must cover both behavior and outcome. It covers the sequencing well but says nothing about what the tool returns or how the agent should verify that the launch actually succeeded before calling katana_get or katana_set.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing or restating parameter information; no penalty applies.

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?

States a specific action chain: launch BOSS TONE STUDIO with the debug port, connect it to the KATANA, and wait for the patch to load. That is far more specific than the side-effecting launch of an app. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling katana_connect, leaving the agent to infer which tool establishes the app-level session versus the amp-level connection.

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 'if it is not open yet' gives a conditional trigger and implies idempotency, which is genuinely useful. But there is no guidance on when to call this versus katana_connect or katana_status, and no stated preconditions (e.g., that the amp must be powered on and reachable). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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