textual_launch

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

Annotations confirm non-destructive and not open-world; description adds 'headlessly' and 'for QA interaction' which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens to the app state, if sessions are reusable, or any side effects beyond launching.

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?

Extremely short at 7 words, but this conciseness comes at the cost of critical information. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place due to lack of detail. A sentence this short should be packed with meaning, but it is vague.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or how it integrates with siblings. Substantial gaps remain.

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%, so description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It provides zero explanation for 'app_path', 'size', or 'session_id'. An agent cannot determine how to correctly supply or interpret these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: launching a Textual app headlessly for QA interaction. The verb 'launch' and resource 'Textual app' are specific, and the context differentiates it from sibling tools like textual_click or textual_screenshot which operate on an already launched app.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not indicate that it should be used before other tools, or mention prerequisites or ordering. An agent has no context on how this tool fits into a workflow.

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