agent_launch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It comprehensively details the asynchronous fire-and-forget behavior, the shared environment (HOME, cwd, MCP, plugins), the injection of sub-agent self-awareness and delegation_allowed=true, the exact meaning of exit codes (0, 3, 4), the default timeout of 600 seconds, no polling/no foreground execution, and the return value collection via pty_read(agent_transcript:true). No contradictions exist.

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 lengthy but information-dense; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and architecture. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by clarifying details. Some minor over-specification occurs (e.g., the PowerShell 7 Start-Process note) but it serves to clarify platform-specific behavior. Overall, it earns its length, though slightly more focus would improve conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the launch flow, async behavior, completion mechanisms, exit codes, environment sharing, permission injection, and result retrieval. Although there is a declared output schema (not shown), the description also explains the receipt outcome semantics, making the agent fully equipped to invoke and interpret results without gaps.

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%, so all 11 parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds conceptual context (e.g., model is a separate axis from harness), but does not provide per-parameter elaboration beyond what the schema already offers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'エージェントを単一の標準入口から永続sessionへ起動する' (launch agents to persistent sessions from a single standard entry point). It clearly distinguishes the conceptual axes of harness vs model, and explains how Grok Composer is specified via harness=grok-cli, which differentiates it from potential sibling-specific launch tools.

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 provides clear usage context: this is the single standard entry point for launching any agent, including via specific harnesses like Cursor or Grok Composer. It details the fire-and-forget pattern (parent does not wait), how completion notifications are received via wait_process or dispatch receipt, and explains exit codes and result retrieval via pty_read. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the '単一の標準入口' phrasing strongly implies it is the primary launch tool.

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