app_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only one session runs at a time, errors if the window never renders, and common causes like msedgedriver/WebView2 version mismatch. This provides essential 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?

The description is concise with no wasted words. Each sentence adds critical information: purpose, parameter behavior, constraints, and common pitfalls. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses clear, direct language.

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 the tool's complexity (launching an app under automation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers prerequisites, behavior, error causes, and parameter details. However, it does not explicitly mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or window handle), which would enhance completeness.

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 schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by explaining how `projectDir` resolves the binary (from src-tauri/Cargo.toml + target/release|debug) and that it defaults to the configured default project. It also clarifies that `appPath` overrides the lookup. This extra context improves usability, though the description could detail `args` more explicitly.

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 launches a built Tauri app under WebDriver automation. The verb 'launch' is specific and the resource 'built Tauri app' is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like app_close and app_force_cleanup by focusing on the launch action.

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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: when to use (to launch for automation), prerequisites (built binary from Cargo.toml), and when to avoid (only one session at a time, must close before launching another). Common errors and their causes are mentioned, aiding the agent in correct invocation.

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