Get launch status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('reads only, audited'), re-evaluates reality to avoid phantom done marks, and is resumable across sessions. This provides complete transparency about its non-destructive nature and how it verifies completion.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence covers the primary purpose; the second adds behavioral context. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (per-step status and next action). It also addresses state management (resumable, re-evaluation) and safety (read-only, audited), making it fully self-contained for a single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides (plan_id described as a launch plan ID). No additional semantics or usage details for the parameter.

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 that the tool loads a launch plan and reports per-step status (done/pending/blocked-on-approval/failed) plus the next action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_launch or preflight_launch by focusing on post-launch status tracking.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as verify_launch or preflight_launch. The context of resumable sessions is provided, but usage context is only implied (e.g., after creating a launch plan).

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