Verify launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Reads only, audited.', which tells the agent it is safe and logged. The list of specific checks adds transparency. It does not cover potential rate limits or idempotency, but for a verification tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists checks, while the second adds behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has one well-described parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, when to use, what it checks, and that it is read-only and audited. The agent has enough information to decide and invoke correctly.

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 only parameter 'plan_id' has a description in the schema ('Launch plan id (launch_*)'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('launch') and lists concrete checks (domain resolves, deployment READY, env vars, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'preflight_launch' and 'get_launch_status' by focusing on end-to-end verification after the last step.

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 explicitly states 'Run after the last step', providing clear timing context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, though 'preflight_launch' is a sibling that would be used earlier. The omission of exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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