launch_terminal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the terminal persists, whether the command runs asynchronously, what happens to command output, how the terminal session is managed, or what side effects occur. The description only states the basic 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then adds the optional capability, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it correctly: the user provides a directory and optionally a command. The main gaps concern runtime behavior, but these are relatively minor for such a simple tool and are already partially covered by the clarity of the action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects 'directory' to the path parameter and 'one command' to the command parameter, which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain command string format, path behavior, default handling, or terminal session specifics beyond the schema's existing defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Open'), a resource ('a new terminal'), and scope ('in a directory and optionally run one command'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_terminals, which only lists terminals.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_open_terminals or file-operation tools. The intended use is implied by the action, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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