启动受控 ENVI Classic 会话

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

The description discloses key side effects: it creates a new evidence directory and launches a session, which the annotations do not convey. It also clarifies that only the session ID is returned. However, it omits details such as failure behavior, timeout semantics, or what 'controlled' means.

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. It conveys the core purpose and return value with no filler or redundant details.

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 tool with 4 parameters, side effects, and no schema property descriptions, this description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, usage flow, prerequisites, and failure behavior. The return value is stated, but that does not compensate for the other missing context.

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 clarify parameters. It only alludes to 'specified experiment workspace', which loosely maps to workspace_root and experiment_name, but provides no meaning for mode or timeout_seconds. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action: create a fresh evidence directory and launch ENVI Classic 5.6. It also specifies the return value (session ID), which distinguishes this launch tool from sibling tools like invoke_menu, health_check, or close_session.

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. It does not mention that it should be the initial step before other ENVI session tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the sibling tool list.

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