launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: timeouts, auto-detection of CLI path and project path, and the trustProject behavior to avoid blocking. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether the process is blocking, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a launch tool.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes the essential purpose without excessive detail. The phrase '等参数' (etc.) adds slight vagueness but does not significantly detract. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-described schema.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return behavior, prerequisites, or how this launch step fits into the broader tool ecosystem (e.g., that it likely must succeed before other tools like 'connect' or element queries are used). This is a critical gap for an initialization tool.

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 merely lists parameter types ('支持项目路径、cli 路径、端口、票据等参数') without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain relationships, defaults, or the significance of the parameters, but the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly.

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 main action: '启动微信开发者工具并连接小程序' (launch WeChat developer tools and connect to mini program). It also lists key parameters (project path, CLI path, port, ticket), making the resource and scope clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' (which might attach to an already running instance), though the verb 'launch' implicitly distinguishes it.

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 (start the dev tools and connect) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does mention auto-detection defaults and the recommendation to set trustProject=true, which are usage hints but not alternatives. No exclusions or when-not conditions are stated.

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