Launch local program

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds a small behavioral hint about GUI verification and 'optionally visible', but it omits important behaviors such as process lifecycle, whether the call blocks, or what output/exit status is returned. No contradiction exists, but transparency is only intermediate.

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?

Highly concise as two sentences in 22 words. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the follow-up GUI guidance is directly relevant and efficiently placed. No filler or redundant content.

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?

With no output schema and a four-parameter tool, the description misses essential context about process lifetime, return value, whether the program is blocking, working-directory assumptions, and session visibility. The GUI follow-up guidance is helpful, but overall the description leaves too much uncertainty for safe, autonomous tool invocation.

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 mentions 'executable or script', 'with arguments', and 'optionally visible', but omits 'cwd' entirely and gives no details about argument handling or vocabulary defaults. The description adds some semantic clarity for executable/args/visible but not enough for key parameters like cwd.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Launch a local executable or script') and key modifiers ('with arguments, optionally visible'). It distinguishes from related tools by emphasizing local executable/script, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'exec' or 'start_job'. This is clear enough for selection.

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 includes a clear follow-up directive: use list_windows and screenshot after launching GUI applications. This gives useful context for the expected workflow, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or present alternatives, so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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