desktop_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the desktop opt-in prerequisite, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits whether launching is idempotent when a GUI is already open, whether the call blocks, or what the returned handle represents (though the output schema covers return shape).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the optional behavior and the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with zero 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the opt-in prerequisite is covered. Still, for a launch/mutation-style tool with no annotations, it should say whether repeated launches are safe or what state the GUI is left in.

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 0% for the single `project` parameter, but the description supplies its meaning: a local project optionally opened at launch. That is meaningful, yet it doesn't clarify whether the value is a path, name, or ID, or what happens if the project doesn't exist.

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 and resource ('Launch the installed GUI') plus the optional project behavior, so an agent can tell this apart from desktop_focus or desktop_action. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Requires desktop opt-in' gives a real precondition for calling it, which is useful routing information. However, it never says when to prefer this over desktop_action/desktop_focus or what to do if the GUI is already running, so usage is only implied.

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