launch_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effects — the app is spawned, the MCP bridge is injected, and the call blocks until UI readiness — but it does not disclose what happens on timeout or launch failure, whether the spawned process persists after return and requires stop_app for cleanup, or what 'UI ready' means operationally.

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 17-word sentence that front-loads the verb and packs in the object, the distinguishing bridge-injection side effect, and the blocking wait behavior. Every word earns its place with zero filler or repetition.

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?

The 100%-coverage schema and existing output schema already handle parameters and return values, so the description only needs to supply lifecycle context. It is missing sequencing guidance relative to siblings — notably that the launched app persists and should later be terminated with stop_app, and how this tool relates to the separate wait_until_ready tool given that launch_app already says it waits for readiness.

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 100% and the parameter docs are unusually rich (absolute vs. relative path rules, examples, a deprecation notice for command, timeout tuning guidance), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Launch') and resource ('PySide6 app'), then adds two distinguishing traits: 'with the MCP bridge injected' and 'wait until the UI is ready.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling set, which contains no other launch action and instead offers complementary tools like stop_app, get_app_status, and wait_until_ready.

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 contains no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Its role as the entry point in the app lifecycle is implied by the name and sibling set, and the cwd parameter description adds useful project-root context (the directory containing pyproject.toml), but the agent must infer sequencing relative to tools like get_app_status and stop_app.

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