create_launch_file

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds context that the package must already exist, but does not disclose overwrite behavior or other side effects. This adds value beyond annotations but does not fully elaborate on behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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?

While an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is incomplete for a tool with four required parameters and zero schema descriptions. Critically, it does not mention that the launch file will use node_name to launch a node, nor does it explain how launch_name relates to the file name. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the absence of parameter explanations. It fails to define workspace_path, package_name, node_name, or launch_name. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional guidance, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the specific verb 'create' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'Python ROS 2 launch file' with the scope 'inside an existing package'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_node or create_package.

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 phrase 'inside an existing package' establishes a clear prerequisite and implies this tool should be used after package creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives 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.