computer_launch_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it launches an app and returns a JSON response, without mentioning side effects, whether it blocks, permissions, app-already-running behavior, or failure modes.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The Returns line is somewhat boilerplate given the output schema exists, but overall it is appropriately sized and has no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter launch tool, this is minimally viable: it identifies both required parameters and the source of serialno. However, it leaves app_name semantics ambiguous and provides no guidance on how to resolve or specify the application, which an agent might need for a correct call.

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 a useful source hint for serialno ('from list_devices'), but app_name is described only as 'The application name', which is nearly tautological and leaves unclear whether it expects a display name, path, or package identifier.

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 and resource: 'Launch a desktop application.' The word 'desktop' helps distinguish it from mobile_launch_app and browser_launch, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 implied by the action ('launch a desktop application') and the helpful note that serialno comes from list_devices. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over mobile_launch_app or browser_launch, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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