launch-super-coder

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: complete isolation ('prompt + context_files are its ONLY context'), the hard failure if non-.md files are passed, the fact that it writes HANDOFF.md notes, and the statuses visible via task:///all. These details enrich the Open World and non-read-only annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than ideal but well-structured with bold section headers and line breaks. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential operational details. Each sentence carries meaning, from the isolation warning to the handoff file path, though a few phrases (e.g., 'context_files are MANDATORY') are repeated in spirit elsewhere.

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?

The description is highly complete for a complex tool: it covers prerequisites, file constraints, workflow ordering, handoff artifacts, and status monitoring via task:///all. However, there is no output schema and the direct return value of the launch call is never explicitly stated (e.g., a task ID), though the task:///all reference implies it. The agent can infer the immediate response, but a small gap remains.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters, with a description coverage of 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by emphasizing that context_files are mandatory and must be .md only, by telling the agent to pass ALL .md files rather than cherry-picking, and by clarifying the dependency behavior (execution order only) in the workflow narrative.

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: 'Launch an autonomous coding agent for implementation, bug fixes, and refactoring.' It also clearly positions the tool as the final implementation stage in the researcher → planner → CODER → tester workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch-super-planner and launch-super-tester.

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: it should be used after the planner completes, and the agent is told to read `task:///{id}` and pass all .md files from the planner's workspace. It also states that non-trivial tasks require investigation and planning first, and that context_files must be created via launch-super-planner or self-authored, thus indicating the proper sequencing relative to alternatives.

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