clo_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that passing -python clo_bridge.py is attempted but may not work, and advises a manual workaround. This is transparent about limitations and required follow-up. However, it does not mention potential side effects or failure modes beyond the bridge.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first, then adds a caveat. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the launch action and bridge quirk but omits parameter semantics and usage differentiation. It does not mention prerequisites, expected output, or how it integrates with the broader tool set. Given the parameter is undocumented, this is a significant gap.

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 mentions the bridge attempt, which likely relates to the with_bridge parameter, but does not explicitly define what true/false does. The parameter's role is only implied, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 CLO') and clarifies the platform (macOS). It distinguishes from siblings like clo_status or clo_stop_bridge by focusing on the launch itself. The mention of the bridge attempt adds context without confusing the core purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a sequence (launch then start bridge) but does not name any sibling tool or conditions for selection. An agent cannot infer when to prefer clo_launch over other CLO tools.

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