launch-classic-agent

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the agent 'keeps context across the session' and monitors `task:///all` for status updates. This informs the caller about session persistence and operational behavior. It does not mention rate limits or explicit auth requirements, but the adding context justifies a 4.

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 well-organized: first sentence states purpose, then behavior and status-monitoring details. It is a bit long but every sentence adds value, and the status section is front-loaded with actionable monitoring instructions. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description could mention return values, but this is a launch tool and the monitoring instructions (task:///all) effectively tell the caller how to obtain results. The description covers the task lifecycle and operational context well, and the 6-parameter schema is fully described. Minor gap: no explicit statement of what the launch call returns, but the monitoring info compensates.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail (e.g., format constraints or typical defaults) but the schema already handles this. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the description provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 tool launches a 'general-purpose autonomous agent' and explicitly enumerates example task types (documentation, analysis, file organization) and contrasts with specialized siblings (coder/planner/tester/researcher). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'for non-specialized tasks' and 'any automation that doesn't fit coder/planner/tester/researcher.' It also adds behavioral guidance ('Investigate first') and notes the tool is 'good for iterative or exploratory work,' which helps the agent choose between this and specialized siblings.

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