run_ros_launch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as whether launching is blocking, how to stop the process, side effects, or return behavior. The description only says 'Launch' and provides no such details. For a launch tool, these behaviors are nontrivial and should be clarified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core function directly and efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial operation (launching a launch file). The description does not explain what happens after launch, whether the process runs in background, how to handle long-running launches, or what is returned. This lack of context is a significant gap for a complex operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already gives. The schema descriptions are clear ('without .launch.py'), so there is no loss from the description's brevity.

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+resource: 'Launch a ROS 2 package launch file'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like run_ros_node (which runs a single node) and call_service. The phrase 'ROS 2 package launch file' scopes it precisely.

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 implies usage when you need to launch a ROS 2 launch file, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like run_ros_node. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks exclusions or when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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