claude_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: fire-and-forget launch, shared HOME/cwd/settings/MCP/plugin/permissions, injected delegation metadata, Stop-hook additions, pre-launch auth verification, and exact exit codes 0/3/4 with the rule that only exit 0 means done. This is unusually complete operational disclosure.

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 long but dense; every sentence carries operationally relevant information and the alias/redirect note is front-loaded. Some parenthetical chains could be formatted more cleanly, but there is little redundancy for a tool with this level of behavioral complexity.

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 9 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description still covers launch semantics, async handoff, completion receipts, auth preconditions, result collection, and sibling routing. With the output schema covering return structure, almost nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds general context such as cwd/HOME/settings inheritance but does not attach new meaning to individual parameters like throughline_source_session or launch_operation_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given that 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 opens by identifying itself as an old-compatibility alias and redirects new integrations to agent_launch(harness=claude-code), then states it launches the Claude Code interactive-agent TUI on a persistent terminal. This is a specific verb+resource+scope framing that clearly distinguishes it from siblings and from claude -p.

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?

It gives explicit when/when-not guidance: not claude -p, not a blocking wait, no polling, no foreground execution; continue input via pty_send, retrieve results via pty_read(agent_transcript:true) or claude_turn, and use agent_launch for new integrations. It also explains the async completion path and exit-code meanings.

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