launch_electron_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, yet it says nothing about whether launching blocks, whether it opens a window, how the session is identified afterward, or how it interacts with close_session. The only disclosure is the implied testing context.

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; it is efficiently sized, though its brevity is the result of omission rather than tight editing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent without the information needed to launch reliably or to know what state results. The one sentence is insufficient for a 4-parameter launch tool with many related siblings.

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% across four parameters, and the description adds no meaning for executablePath, args, slowMo, or headless. An agent must guess at formats and semantics of the least obvious parameters (slowMo, headless).

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 and resource ('launch an Electron application') with a use-case qualifier ('for testing'), which separates it from runtime-session siblings like connect_to_electron_cdp or execute. It does not, however, explain the distinction from those siblings explicitly.

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 'for testing' hints at context but there is no statement of when to call this versus connect_to_electron_cdp, execute_main_process_script, or list_sessions, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the app must be built, whether a session must be established first).

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