debug_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool launches a binary under the debugger and returns a persistent session ID, which is the core behavioral contract. However, it omits useful details such as whether the launched process automatically pauses at the entry point, what side effects the launch has on the system, or what happens on failure. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that states the action, the target, and the return value without any unnecessary words. The most important information (launching and session ID) is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly communicates the essential return value (persistent session ID) and its role in subsequent debugging commands. The single-parameter input is fully covered by the schema. It would be slightly more complete with information about the expected session ID format or common failure modes, but for a launch tool of this simplicity it is largely adequate.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter, binary_path, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond naming the binary. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Launch'), identifies the exact resource ('binary under the radare2 debugger'), and states the key output ('persistent session ID'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like debug_attach, which likely attaches to an already-running process rather than launching a new binary.

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 'for subsequent debug commands' clearly places this tool as the entry point for a debugging workflow, implying it should be called before tools like debug_continue or debug_get_registers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with debug_attach or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is strong context but not fully explicit alternatives.

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