Open or focus a local Omarchy utility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that an optional Files directory is 'validated and always opens a new window', which is useful, and implies focus behavior when no directory is given. However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., invalid directory, missing utility), permissions needed, or return behavior. It also leaves ambiguity around how 'reuse' interacts with About vs Files. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose and mode, the second adds the key exception for directory. Key information is front-loaded; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks necessary context: error handling, prerequisites (e.g., whether About/Files must be installed), behavior when reuse=false, and interaction between directory and reuse. It covers the main happy path but omits edge cases and failure behavior, leaving agents to guess.

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 only 33% (only 'reuse' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'directory' (validated, opens new window) and partially clarifies 'reuse' (focus existing exact-class when no directory). However, it does not explicitly explain the 'target' enum values beyond naming About and Files, which is somewhat covered by the first sentence. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates only partially and leaves some interplay ambiguous (e.g., what happens when reuse=false and directory is absent).

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 function: opening About or Files using local installed commands, or focusing an exact existing class. It specifies the exact targets (About, Files) and the two modes (open vs focus), which distinguishes it from generic launchers like launch_app or local_config_open. The phrase 'local installed commands' adds clarity about the mechanism.

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 does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like local_config_open or local_tui_launch, nor provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for About/Files but offers no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations. The mention of focusing an existing class is behavioral, not guidance. Agents must infer when this is the right tool.

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