computer.launch_application

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: an allowlist gate, rate limiting, and a confirmation step. However, it says 'confirm=true by default' while the input schema declares confirm default false, which will mislead an agent about the default posture of a potentially risky action. It also omits whether the call blocks until the app is ready or what is returned.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the accepted command forms and then the security constraints front-loaded. Nothing is buried or repeated across sentences.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the value domain, the security gates, and the confirmation behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are the return/blocking behavior and the confirm-default discrepancy noted above.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does add value for 'command' by listing accepted value forms, which the bare string schema does not convey. For 'confirm' it supplies a default that conflicts with the schema's declared default of false, so the added meaning is partly wrong rather than merely incomplete.

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') and resource ('GUI application') and enumerates accepted command forms ('chrome', 'code', a .desktop entry, or full path), which lets an agent map an intent to this tool. It stops short of differentiating from the closest sibling, computer.run_command, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage context is only implied: launching GUI apps is the job, and security.allowed_applications/rate limiting hint at when calls will be rejected. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer computer.run_command instead, nor any precondition guidance beyond the security mention.

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