open_application

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that friendly names, .desktop ids, and exec binaries are resolved against installed .desktop entries. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether the app launches in the foreground, or how the required args argument affects execution.

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 only two sentences and every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and scope, the second gives accepted input formats and the alternative tool. The most important disambiguation is front-loaded and there is no 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?

The tool is simple but has a required 'args' parameter with no documentation, no output schema to describe the return/result, and no mention of error behavior. An agent cannot fully predict what to pass for args or how to confirm that the application actually opened, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It richly explains the 'name' parameter's accepted formats, but it completely ignores the required 'args' parameter, leaving its purpose and expected format unexplained. This is a significant gap because both parameters are required.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'desktop/GUI application', and immediately distinguishes this tool from the closely related sibling list_installed_applications by explaining the accepted name formats. It is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what this tool does and how it differs from other open- or app-related tools.

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 explicitly says to use list_installed_applications when unsure of the exact name, providing a direct alternative for an ambiguous situation. It does not fully cover when not to use this tool relative to other siblings like open_path, but the 'desktop/GUI application' scoping gives sufficient practical guidance.

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