standalone_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain side effects, whether the launched app persists, required permissions, failure behavior, or what happens to prior app instances; the verification caveat is too thin to compensate.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic, but it arguably earns its place as a caveat about launch versus verification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no sibling differentiation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter, config_path, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what config_path should contain or how it relates to the launch. The phrase 'this run's current verified Mac build' implies context but does not define the parameter.

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 and resource: launching the run's current verified Mac build as a new app instance. It is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby lifecycle siblings such as stage_start or preview_control.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. The sentence 'Launch request is not input verification' is a caveat, not usage guidance.

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