Launch a Zandronum instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions spawning and attaching but does not explain what 'attach' means, whether the process runs synchronously, or what side effects occur (e.g., creating a new instance). The requirement for ZANDRONUM_EXE adds context, but overall it lacks transparency.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action ('Spawn...') and the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, error conditions, or how it interacts with the instance lifecycle. The description is far from sufficient for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'with the given options' without explaining any of the 9 parameters. Parameter names like map, iwad, skill are somewhat self-explanatory to domain experts, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, leaving ambiguous parameters like instance and extraArgs undocumented.

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 purpose: 'Spawn a bridge-enabled Zandronum process with the given options and attach to it.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like attach_instance and kill_instance. The title is consistent with the description.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires ZANDRONUM_EXE to be set') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like attach_instance. The usage context is implied by the name and action, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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