Launch a MAX+plus II GUI program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the independent-backend isolation, the allowlist restriction, and the crucial caveat that a successful launch does not imply readiness.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then the readiness caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it states it returns real windows and tells the agent to observe the returned window. It leaves some gaps, such as behavior when an instance is already running or what happens on failure, but is adequate for the task.

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% with only two optional parameters (root, program) and an enum fully documented in the schema. The description adds the notion that programs are allowlisted, which contextually frames the enum, but offers no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Launch), a bounded resource (allowlisted MAX+plus II GUI), and the mechanism (independent Windows backend returning real windows). 'No shell or arbitrary executable' distinguishes it from a generic process launcher and from pipeline siblings like maxplus2_run.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('No shell or arbitrary executable') and a follow-up directive ('Launch does not prove readiness; observe the returned window'), which effectively routes the agent to desktop_observe/desktop_windows. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of full alternative-naming.

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