pons_preview_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly guarantees 'performs no writes' and enumerates what the agent should expect to receive. It doesn't cover error behavior or authentication, but for a read-only preview the key safety trait is disclosed.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause adds value: the action, the output list, the explanation promise, and the no-writes safety guarantee.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return contents, the safety profile, and the intended use. Listing the decoded fields and the bytes32 guard gives an agent enough to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that pairToken relates to pair-token economics and launchConfigId selects the launch config, but it adds no syntax, default, or format details beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 a specific action, 'Preview a launch config before launching,' and lists concrete outputs: decoded getLaunchConfig fields, the previewLaunchEconomics bytes32 guard, and pair-token economics. This makes it easy to distinguish from the many pons_ sibling tools even without naming them.

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 clearly states the intended use case ('before launching') and explicitly notes that it 'performs no writes,' signaling it's a safe pre-flight check. It doesn't name alternatives like pons_can_launch, but the context is clear enough for an agent to pick this over mutation or quote tools.

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