agents_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behaviors: layout auto behavior for 2 vs 3+ panes, TMUX_AGENTS_OPEN_COMMAND opening the session in a terminal app, and replace=true killing an existing session of the same name first. It does not cover blocking behavior or error outcomes, but the main side effects and destructive path are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses compact structured notes for agents, layout, env-var behavior, and replace. The example command strings earn their place because they clarify the exact format needed for the agents parameter, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the critical side effects and parameter semantics well. It could be more complete by explicitly defining the session parameter and the top-level cwd, and by noting how this launch tool relates to the tmux inspection sibling tools.

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. It does for agents (with the expected object shape and concrete command examples), layout (with valid values and auto semantics), and replace (kills existing session). It leaves session and the top-level cwd largely to inference from their parameter names, which is a small but real 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a tmux session with one pane per agent and start each agent's command.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like tmux_status, panes_list, and session_kill, which inspect or destroy sessions rather than create and launch them.

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 explains how to use the tool but gives no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools, nor any exclusions such as 'use panes_list to inspect an existing session instead.' The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose, not explicitly stated.

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