launch-super-tester

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Runs in COMPLETE ISOLATION,' 'Read task:///all every ~30s,' and that context_files are 'injected directly into the agent prompt.' These traits are not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint, so the description meaningfully discloses how the tool behaves at runtime.

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-structured with bolded sections (intro, context_files, Workflow, Status) and is front-loaded with purpose. It is moderately sized and every sentence serves a role, though it slightly repeats schema details (e.g., context_files being required) which is redundant but not wasteful.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, isolation, workflow placement, and status monitoring. It does not explicitly state the return value or task ID, but the task:///all reference implies task-based outputs, leaving only a minor gap in explaining what the caller receives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches parameter meaning by emphasizing 'context_files are MANDATORY,' recommending 'Pass ALL files from the coder's .agent-workspace/ — especially HANDOFF.md,' and clarifying the order of depends_on. This practical guidance goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Launch an autonomous testing agent.' It then details the exact scope (Playwright E2E, API testing with curl + jq, running test suites, verification) and positions the tool in a workflow (researcher → planner → coder → TESTER), distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch-super-coder and launch-super-planner.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Chain with depends_on after coder' and states that context_files from the coder's workspace are mandatory, especially HANDOFF.md. It also explains the monitoring loop with task:///all, providing concrete operational guidance. While it does not name alternatives, the workflow placement is an explicit usage directive.

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