Launch a Zandronum instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool spawns a process and attaches to it, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens if an instance already exists), lifecycle, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full impact.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a critical prerequisite. There is no superfluous text, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly longer to include parameter guidance without harming conciseness.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, what 'attach' means, error handling, or the relationship to the sibling tools. The description would leave an AI agent with many unanswered questions about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. While some parameter names (e.g., map, iwad, files) are somewhat self-explanatory in the context of a game engine, the description does not add meaning or clarify required formats or defaults beyond the schema's types.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate launching a Zandronum instance. The description specifies 'spawn a bridge-enabled Zandronum process' which is a specific verb-resource combination. The sibling tools are all about inspecting or manipulating game state, not launching a process, so the tool is well distinguished.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires ZANDRONUM_EXE to be set'), which provides some guidance on when it can be used. However, it offers no comparison to alternatives (e.g., why use this vs. load_map or other tools) and does not specify when not to use this tool.

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