Launch Nukes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden. It discloses the high-severity intent but gives no detail about side effects, irreversibility, or failure modes. The word 'attempts' hints that success is uncertain but doesn't explain what happens on failure or whether there are safeguards. Should describe the irreversible, destructive nature and any authorization requirements.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Nothing extraneous. The terse, dramatic tone matches the tool's destructive nature.

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 catastrophic-action tool with a single parameter, the description is dangerously thin. It doesn't mention that targets must be vetted against the existing threat assessment, what a successful launch returns, or whether confirmation/authorization is required. Given siblings like assess_threat_level exist, the description should at least tie into that workflow. The severity of the action demands more guardrail information.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'target' with 'Target designation'. Description adds nothing beyond the schema — no format hints, no example values, no discussion of valid targets. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies and there's no description-driven value-add.

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 'Attempts to initiate global thermonuclear war' states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (self_terminate, check_judgment_day, assess_threat_level) in subject matter, though it doesn't explicitly name syntactic differences.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. There's no mention of preconditions (e.g., threat level assessment first) or when not to use it. The verb 'attempts' implies uncertainty but no routing information is provided.

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