launch_app

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it says the process is launched detached, which tells the agent it is fire-and-forget and will not receive a PID or lifecycle handle. It doesn't disclose failure behavior for unknown commands, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; the parenthetical mechanism earns its place by explaining how the launch behaves rather than padding.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers what to pass and how the process is spawned. Only the outcome on bad input or already-running apps is left unstated.

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% and already gives examples ('firefox', 'kitty', 'code'), so the description's 'by name or command' merely restates the dual input mode. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch an application') and discloses the underlying mechanism ('hyprctl dispatch exec'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with near-siblings like open_terminal, open_url, or list_desktop_apps, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

'By name or command' implies the input shape, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over open_terminal, open_url, or list_running_apps, and no note on what happens if the app is already running.

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