desktop_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool returns 'dispatched with process-bound window candidates observed for wait_timeout seconds', that candidates do not prove document readiness, that singleton association is never guessed, and that retrying uncertain launches is unsafe. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return behavior, then the safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 launch tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers the input semantics, the return value, the timeout behavior, and the follow-up action the agent should take. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains application_id (the desktop_applications ID), files_or_uris (absolute existing paths or URIs), and wait_timeout (default 1, range 0–3, 0 skips observation). It does not explicitly restate the parameter names, but the semantics are clearly conveyed. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that files_or_uris is optional/nullable, though the schema already shows that.

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 states a specific verb ('Launch'), a specific resource ('an installed application by its desktop_applications ID'), and the optional payload ('absolute existing paths or URIs'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like desktop_activate or desktop_invoke by focusing on launching an application by ID rather than interacting with an already-running window.

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 usage guidance: use the desktop_applications ID, optionally pass paths/URIs, and set wait_timeout to observe window candidates. It also tells the agent when not to act: 'never blindly retry an uncertain launch' and 'Inspect candidates or desktop_windows before acting.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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