launch_commander

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains what is generated (the plan components) but does not disclose side effects, output format, or any operational constraints. This is adequate but leaves room for more detail.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose 'Launch Sequence Planner: Generate complete 12-week launch plan'. It is efficient but somewhat dense, listing many items in one clause.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good sense of the output scope by enumerating plan deliverables. It does not fully explain how inputs map to outputs, but overall completeness is decent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only lists the plan components, which indirectly relate to parameters but without explicit mapping.

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 generates a complete 12-week launch plan, listing specific components (timeline, launch day schedule, channel coordination, RACI matrix, contingency plans, metrics dashboard). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like crisis_planner or retention_playbook.

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 this tool is for launch planning, a distinct use case from the sibling tools. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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