launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that this builds and starts a fresh instance rather than attaching to an existing one — but says nothing about process lifecycle, whether an existing instance is killed, permissions, or startup failure behavior.

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 compact sentence with the key behavioral detail (builds and runs fresh instance) front-loaded in parentheses. No waste, though it is minimal rather than richly structured.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey return/lifecycle behavior; it does not say what launching yields or how it relates to the subsequent connect/close siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps for a process-spawning tool.

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 100%, so env, appPath, and headless are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (launch) and resource (Electron app), with the scope clarified as a fresh built instance for testing. It implicitly contrasts with 'connect' (which presumably attaches to an existing app), but does not name the sibling 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?

'for testing' and 'builds and runs fresh instance' imply the usage context vs connect, but there is no explicit statement of when to use launch versus connect/close or any prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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