get_launch_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced authentication', which hints at potential auth requirements, but doesn't specify what those are (e.g., API keys, permissions). It also doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what 'comprehensive' entails beyond test sessions. For a read operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get comprehensive launch details including test sessions') and adds contextual notes ('uses new reporting API with enhanced authentication'). There's no wasted verbiage, and every part serves a purpose. It loses a point because the emoji (🚀) is decorative and doesn't add functional clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at authentication needs, but doesn't explain output structure, error cases, or how 'comprehensive' differs from sibling tools. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured behavioral hints, it should do more to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between projectKey and projectId, or clarify what 'dto' format means). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive launch details including test sessions'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('launch details'), and scope ('including test sessions'), which distinguishes it from simpler summary tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_launch_summary' or 'detailed_analyze_launch_failures', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'uses new reporting API with enhanced authentication', which implies this is a preferred or updated method. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_launch_summary' or 'get_all_launches_for_project', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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