AviUtl2 の起動

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable caveat: if the same project is already open in AviUtl2, external edits will not be incorporated until the project is reopened. This goes beyond the schema and provides insight into a potential side effect. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or whether the command blocks, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of a clear main action, a brief explanation of the optional parameter, and a necessary warning. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or vague language. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary function.

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 simple launcher tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: how to launch AviUtl2, how to open a project, and the relevant caveat about existing open projects. It does not specify failure behavior or return values, but these are less critical for a launch action. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 schema already documents project_path with a description ('開く .aup2 の絶対パス'), and the tool description simply restates that specifying it opens the project. It adds no additional format, constraints, or nuances beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'AviUtl2 を起動する' (starts AviUtl2) and explains the optional behavior of opening a project when project_path is provided. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or read_project, which operate on project files but do not launch the application.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to launch AviUtl2 and optionally open a specific project via project_path. It also includes a cautionary note about already-open projects requiring a reopen, which helps the agent decide between launching fresh versus reusing an existing instance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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