Open App

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral constraint – only 'approved' applications may be launched – which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about what happens for a non-approved name, whether the call blocks, or whether launching focuses an existing instance.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and immediately supplies the concrete targets. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With one parameter and an existing output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it does and what values to pass. The remaining gaps – failure behavior for unsupported app names and exact string-matching rules – are modest for a simple launcher.

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% and the single 'name' parameter has no enum, so the description must supply meaning – and it does, by listing the accepted values (vscode, notepad, calc, excel, word, powerpoint, terminal). It stops short of stating that 'name' must be exactly one of these strings, or whether matching is case-sensitive, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 names a specific verb ('Launch') and a scoped resource ('approved desktop productivity application'), then enumerates concrete targets. An agent can distinguish this from file-creation siblings like create_excel or create_docx, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 is only implied by the parenthetical app list and the word 'approved' – the agent must infer that this tool opens an already-installed app rather than creating a document. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as create_excel or list_open_windows, and no stated preconditions beyond the allowlist hint.

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