launch_interactive_viewer

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, and it only adds 'visible standalone interactive' qualifiers. It does not say whether the call blocks, spawns a process, requires a display, or what result the agent should expect.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices explanatory content scored under other dimensions.

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 launch tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one bare sentence is insufficient. The agent lacks enough context about invocation behavior and parameter effects to use it confidently.

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 does not compensate for the eight parameters. Only the scene parameter is implied by 'Open a scene'; frame, camera, width, height, samples, free_camera, and execution_mode are left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action (open/launch) applied to a scene in a specific target (MoonRay's visible standalone interactive viewer). It is not tautological with the tool name and helps distinguish it from render-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling viewer commands.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description only says what the tool does and does not indicate when to prefer it over interactive_viewer_preview, render_preview, or related tools.

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