waveform_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the existing-instance handling and OS file association mechanism, but it does not mention whether the call blocks until launch completes, what happens if the binary is missing, or what the return value indicates.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the existing-instance nuance is placed efficiently after the primary purpose.

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 low-complexity launch tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main launch behavior, file opening, and the already-running case. It omits startup-wait and error behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: file_path is opened through OS file association and can target an already-running instance, while exe_path overrides auto-detection. This enriches both parameters beyond their bare schema definitions.

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 action ('Launch Waveform') and the optional resource (a .tracktionedit file). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like waveform_focus, waveform_status, and waveform_quit because it is the only one that starts the application.

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 context: use this tool to start Waveform or open a project file in it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the existing-instance behavior provides enough guidance for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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