launch_app

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a key behavioral detail: 'The process is detached from this server', which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior or return value, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first defines the action and provides examples, the second adds a critical behavioral disclaimer. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks information on error handling (e.g., if command fails), return value, and prerequisites. Given no output schema, more detail would improve 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?

The single parameter 'command' has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it expects a shell command and giving examples, thus adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Launch an application') and the method ('via a shell command') with concrete examples (e.g., firefox). It is distinct from all sibling tools which deal with window management, clipboard, or input simulation.

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?

While the description provides examples of valid commands, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any preconditions (e.g., command must exist in PATH). Usage context is implied but not formally defined.

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