launch-super-researcher

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable behavioral context about output location ('.agent-workspace/researches/[topic]/'), the need to read task:///{id} after completion, the don't-cherry-pick handoff rule, and monitoring via task:///all every ~30s. Minor deduction because it doesn't explicitly warn about long-running behavior or costs, but it's richer than most.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clear workflow, output location, and status loop. Each sentence earns its place. Slight deduction for the bolded emphasis and the somewhat dense status list, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what output is produced (.md files), where it goes, and how to retrieve it (task:///{id}). It also covers the monitor loop and handoff. It doesn't detail failure modes or cancellation, but for a launch tool with rich schema and annotations, this is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the overall workflow purpose of the prompt parameter's handoff target and the don't-filter context_files rule. It could add more detail on how depends_on interacts with context_files, but it does clarify the execution-order-only semantics, which adds meaning beyond the raw 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 'Launch an autonomous research agent' with specific investigative scope ('Investigates codebases, APIs, libraries, and technical topics') and output type ('.md research documents'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly placing it first in the workflow (RESEARCHER → planner → coder → tester) and emphasizing 'Investigate before you solve'.

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: 'use this before planning or coding when the problem space is unclear.' It names sibling tools in the workflow context (planner, coder, tester) and specifies the handoff protocol, so the agent knows exactly when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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