GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the process runs in the background, stdout/stderr are captured in a specific log file path, and failure returns an error dict. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource consumption or system impact, 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: launching details, constraints, behavioral context, return values, and error handling. There is no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (launching GUI apps with background processes) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and returns. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or system requirements, which could be relevant for a launch tool.

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 adds meaning by specifying that the 'command' parameter must be an application listed by app_list(), clarifying its semantics beyond the schema's generic string type. This provides crucial context, though it doesn't detail command format or examples.

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 specific action ('Launch a desktop GUI application') and resource ('application'), distinguishing it from siblings like app_list (which lists applications) and app_status (which checks status). It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Only applications listed by app_list() are accepted' specifies when to use (with listed apps) and implies when not to use (with unlisted apps). It also references alternatives like app_status for checking status, clearly differentiating from sibling tools.

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