abrir_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful constraint — only apps pre-approved in config.yaml can be opened — which hints at a failure mode, but it says nothing about what happens when the name is not allowlisted, whether the app is brought to the foreground, or whether a handle is returned (the output schema covers the last part).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraint and the value examples both earn their place. Slightly compressed into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 need not be explained, and the one required parameter is illustrated. Still, for a launcher with no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about failure behavior for non-allowlisted names and about whether the call blocks or launches asynchronously.

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 for the single 'nome' parameter. The inline examples ('bloco de notas', 'calculadora', 'vscode') add real value by showing the expected value vocabulary, but matching rules such as case sensitivity, exact config key vs human-readable name, and whether aliases work remain undocumented.

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 ('Abre') plus the resource ('um app'), and names the source of truth ('liberado no config.yaml'). The examples ('bloco de notas', 'calculadora', 'vscode') make clear this is a desktop app launcher rather than the browser/window siblings (navegador_abrir, janelas_listar), though the distinction is only implicit.

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 phrase 'liberado no config.yaml' implies that this tool is only usable for allowlisted apps, which is useful scoping context. However, it never states when to choose this over navegador_abrir or janelas_listar, nor what to do if the desired app is not on the list.

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