get_launch_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'uses new reporting API' which adds some context about implementation, but doesn't describe what 'quick launch summary' contains, whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - one sentence with an emoji that adds visual context. Every word earns its place: 'Get quick launch summary' states the core purpose, 'without detailed test sessions' provides important differentiation, and 'uses new reporting API' adds implementation context. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context about what the 'quick launch summary' actually contains, response format details, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with rich sibling context and no structured safety/behavior annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 quick launch summary without detailed test sessions' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'launch summary'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_launch_details' and 'get_launch_test_summary' by emphasizing 'quick' and 'without detailed test sessions'. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives for full differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool ('quick launch summary without detailed test sessions') versus more detailed alternatives, but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name specific sibling tools. It mentions 'uses new reporting API' which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparisons.

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