Launch and place a grid of coding agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Launches independent Omarchy TUI windows, assigns sparse/exact cells in lua:omarchy-grid, and verifies each final class/workspace/geometry.' This discloses the side effects (window launching) and verification process. It also mentions the default to next_empty workspace to avoid displacement. However, it does not address error handling, prerequisite requirements, or what happens on failure. For a launch tool with zero annotations, this is above-average transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then giving two clear usage patterns. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, the homogeneous syntax, the mixed syntax, the underlying behavior (launches, assigns, verifies), and the workspace safety default. It is slightly longer than necessary but every clause carries useful information. A minor redundancy is 'ONE-CALL' which is roughly restated by 'orchestration,' but overall it is well-structured.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and nested placement objects (though listed as non-nested in signals), the description covers the two primary use cases and the essential behavior. It does not mention the `dry_run` parameter (which validates without launching) or `focus_workspace`, but these are well-documented in the schema. The lack of an output schema means the 'verifies' behavior is not fully explained, but the description provides enough to understand the tool's effect. It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it, though a few optional parameters could have been mentioned.

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 67% (6 of 9 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema. It explains the relationship between agent/cols/rows and how count defaults to cols*rows, clarifies the dual modes (homogeneous vs placements), and provides a concrete placement example. It does not individually explain every parameter, but it clarifies the core usage patterns that the schema alone does not convey, such as how to build a mixed grid and the workspace default behavior.

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 leads with 'ONE-CALL agent workspace orchestration' and immediately gives concrete examples ('open a 2x2 OpenCode grid', mixed placements). It clearly states the verb (launch/orchestrate), resource (grid of coding agents), and the two distinct modes (homogeneous vs mixed). The tool is unambiguously distinct from sibling tools like layout_grid or window_* which handle window management, not agent orchestration.

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 provides explicit usage patterns for both homogeneous (agent, cols, rows, count) and mixed (placements) modes, with a concrete example for each. It also clarifies that count defaults to all cells and that workspace defaults to next_empty to avoid displacing existing tasks. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but the tool's purpose is so distinct that the usage context is clear. The guidance is strong but lacks an explicit 'use instead of' note.

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