onda_launch_session

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sequential operations, atomicity from the agent's perspective, the ask-user non-proceeding behavior, and the success return shape. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear model of what will happen.

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 organized into a first-sentence workflow, placement modes, ask-user detail, and success return. It is slightly long due to the ask-user explanation, but every sentence contributes and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex macro with 6 parameters, a nested workspace object, and no output schema, the description covers workflow, placement semantics, the interactive path, and return shape. It does not detail error handling or the addTerminalIfNeeded=false behavior, but the schema covers the latter; overall it is complete for agent 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 already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds the default placement ('auto'), clarifies that prompt is passed as a single argv and is ignored if args is set, and explains the ask-user return contract. These are meaningful semantic additions beyond the schema.

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 with 'High-level macro: ensure workspace exists → mount it in target window → add a terminal pane → spawn bin with args...' which names a specific verb chain and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from lower-level sibling tools by emphasizing its macro and atomic scope.

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 identifies itself as a high-level macro and describes placement modes, including the interactive ask-user flow with re-invocation instructions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough and no exclusions are needed.

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