launch_app

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

The description mentions the key behavioral trait that the process detaches to outlive the request. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values, which would be beneficial.

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: three sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action, gives examples, and states the detached process behavior, all in a compact form.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers input and a key behavior. However, it does not mention return values or error conditions, and the presence of an output schema (not visible) means the description could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'app' is a .desktop id or binary, and 'args' are optional extra arguments, providing examples that add meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 an app using either a .desktop id or a binary on PATH, with concrete examples like 'firefox' and 'org.kde.dolphin'. This distinguishes it from siblings such as list_desktop_apps and open_path.

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 provides basic usage (provide app identifier, optional args) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_path or find_processes. No exclusions or when-not guidance is given.

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