sdr_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotent-ish behavior (won't start if already running) and what autostart does, but says nothing about what happens when the app is already up (error vs. no-op), permission requirements, or failure modes.

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 with no waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the parameter caveat is parenthetical rather than buried.

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 one-optional-parameter launch tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential action and the one parameter's effect. Only the already-running case is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 schema only labels the boolean "Autostart", so the description must supply meaning. It does: autostart=True also starts the SDR source, explaining the parameter's real effect beyond a bare boolean.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Start SDR++") and a clear scope, so an agent can tell it apart from sdr_status or sdr_power at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 it isn't running" implies the operating condition (only launch when the app is down), which is useful guidance, but it names no alternatives and gives no prerequisites or fallback path if the launch fails.

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