dd2_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency-like behavior ('no-op if it is running') and the save-loading limitation. It does not state whether the call blocks until the game is ready, what happens if Steam is unavailable, or other failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a launch action.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The main action and the key no-op condition are front-loaded, and the save-loading caveat is placed after the core behavior.

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 zero-parameter launch tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and the important no-op case. It is nearly complete, though it could mention failure modes or whether the call waits for the game to finish loading.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and fully described, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 verb and resource: 'Start DD2 through Steam.' The parenthetical 'no-op if it is running' further sharpens the action, and the final sentence clarifies the boundary that loading a save still requires the player. This is easily distinguishable from siblings such as dd2_status, dd2_quit, and dd2_take_control.

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 gives clear usage context: this launches DD2 and is safe to call if the game is already running. The caveat about loading saves needing the player is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as checking dd2_status first or using dd2_take_control afterward.

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