Read launch intake

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes missing questions and next action, useful context, but says nothing about errors when intake_id is unknown or the shape/size of returned data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be marginally improved by naming the alternative tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does well to enumerate return contents, but it omits how to obtain intake_id and offers no sense of response shape. For a simple single-param read it is mostly sufficient but has clear gaps.

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?

Only one parameter, intake_id, with a UUID format in the schema but 0% description coverage. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not say where the id comes from (e.g., create_launch) or how it keys the profile. Adequate but thin given the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and enumerates what is returned: persisted profile, evidence, missing questions, and next action. This clearly identifies it as the intake-state read tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_launch or answer_launch_questions.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus siblings like get_launch, list_launches, or answer_launch_questions. The purpose implies a resume/introspection use case, but the agent must infer the conditions itself.

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