Launch an application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Launch a supported desktop app via Omarchy' and mentions the URL limitation, but does not reveal what happens on success or failure, whether the launch is synchronous, what side effects occur, or what the return value (if any) looks like. For a mutation-like action, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a short clause for the URL constraint. It front-loads the core action and avoids any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 parameters, one enum-defined, one optional url), and the schema covers parameter details. However, the description does not clarify the expected outcome (e.g., no output schema, no mention of return values), any preconditions, or how errors are surfaced. An agent might call it correctly but not know what to expect, making it incomplete for full context.

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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters: the app enum lists supported values, and the url parameter includes a description ('Optional URL for browser only'). The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides—it merely restates the URL constraint. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Launch') and a resource ('supported desktop app via Omarchy'), clarifying both the action and the platform. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like local_utility_open by specifying 'desktop app' and restricting URLs to browsers, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear context (launching desktop apps) and notes the URL constraint for browsers, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like local_utility_open, local_tui_launch, or local_config_open. There is no 'when not to use' guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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