Launch or focus a bounded local TUI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the input constraints (no shell strings or URLs) and the launch/focus behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., terminal requirements), error behavior, or what happens in edge cases. A launch/focus tool typically has non-destructive behavior, but that is not stated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a key constraint. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits details on cwd and reuse semantics, the exact list of supported commands, and error handling or return behavior. The agent lacks enough context to make robust call decisions without consulting the schema and possibly other sources.

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 description mentions 'argv array' and 'exact app ID', which maps to the args and command parameters, giving some meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain cwd and reuse, and does not enumerate the supported commands. The agent must open the schema to understand all parameter usage, which the description should compensate for.

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 what the tool does: launch a supported local TUI or focus an existing matching window, with an explicit constraint against shell strings and URLs. This is specific and avoids confusion with generic launch tools, but it does not name sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies use for TUIs only ('supported local TUI') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like launch_app or local_utility_open. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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