Launch TUI

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 the session ID return but lacks critical details: whether the process runs in background/foreground, timeout behavior, error handling, resource limits, or how the pseudo-terminal is managed. For a tool that launches processes, 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, the second states the return value. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does and what it returns) 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but essential context: it launches TUI apps and returns a session ID. However, for a tool that creates managed processes, it lacks information about lifecycle management, error conditions, or interaction patterns. The context is complete enough to understand the basic purpose but insufficient for robust usage.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through schema alone, with no additional value 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Launch a TUI application'), the resource ('in a managed pseudo-terminal'), and the outcome ('Returns a session ID for subsequent interactions'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'cursor', 'kill', or 'list_sessions' by focusing on initial session creation rather than interaction or management.

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 usage for starting TUI applications with session management, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like direct command execution or other session tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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