Open an app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the action launches an external desktop app (a side effect beyond a data read/write) and that consent is required first. It omits other behaviorally relevant facts such as what happens if the app is already open, whether it errors on invalid values, or what the call returns.

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, no filler. The core action leads, and the consent constraint directly follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter launcher with no output schema and no nested structures, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the reason to call it, and the consent precondition. A note on idempotency or the already-open case would close the remaining gap.

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 offers no semantics for the single 'app' parameter. However, the parameter is fully constrained by an enum ('due-again', 'gift-keeper') whose values are largely self-describing, which limits the practical gap; the description still never mentions the parameter or what distinguishes the two apps.

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 and resource ('Opens one of the Tiong Creative apps on this Mac') and immediately explains the payoff ('so its tools can be used'). That framing distinguishes it from the sibling app-specific tools (due_again_*, gift_keeper_*), which are only usable after this launcher runs.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only call this after the user has agreed to open it.' This tells the agent when invoking is permitted. It doesn't spell out the ordering relative to specific siblings (e.g., call this first, then due_again_items), so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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