Apps and windows

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, painting a mixed but clear safety profile. The description adds that launch runs 'in the background' and focus brings to front, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether launch can fail if already running or what states are required for focus.

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 compact sentence front-loads the action list without extraneous detail. It is efficient but could be better structured as bullet points for clarity with four distinct operations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, the description leaves gaps about when each parameter applies and the observation_id's role. It's minimally adequate for an agent that already knows the action enum, but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says windows can be 'optionally of one app', implying the 'name' parameter filters results for the windows action, but doesn't clarify that name is ignored for list or required for focus/launch. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds some mapping but leaves ambiguity.

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 four specific operations (list apps, list windows, launch, focus) mapping to the action enum, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like click or type_text. It's a clear verb+resource statement, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any specific sibling beyond what the domain implies.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over observe (which likely also lists windows) or when to use launch vs focus. The parenthetical '(optionally of one app)' hints at the windows filter but doesn't state the required parameters or conditions for each action.

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