Start Morphologist

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only says what will be generated and from what data. It does not disclose whether the launch is synchronous or asynchronous, what directories must pre-exist, permissions, or side effects; output schema covers return shape but not execution behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and stage, and contains no wasted words. However, for a four-parameter pipeline stage with no schema documentation, it is too thin to be considered appropriately sized, so it earns only a middling score.

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, zero parameter documentation, and a multi-stage sibling suite, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but input preparation, execution mode, and stage relationships remain unaddressed.

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% for four parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only vaguely references 'raw T1 MRI data' and says nothing about input_dir, output_dir, parallel, or enable_sulcal_recognition. An agent cannot infer the meaning or required format of any parameter from the 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?

States a specific verb 'Launch' and resource 'sulcal graphs with Morphologist from raw T1 MRI data,' and identifies the pipeline stage ('Stage 1'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from later start_* siblings, but does not name an alternative or explicitly state what it is not for, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many start_* siblings. It does not mention prerequisites such as preflight_check or how this stage relates to downstream stages, leaving the agent to infer usage from the stage number alone.

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