arch_spawn_terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the interactive and graphical nature, but omits key behavioral traits like whether the call blocks, returns immediately, requires a graphical session, or affects existing windows. No side effects or error behavior are mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, no redundant words. Every word adds value: it states what, where, and optional customization.

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 description is adequate for a simple spawn operation, but has clear gaps: it does not mention the working_dir parameter, does not clarify behavior on failure, and does not provide usage context versus siblings. An output schema exists, so return values are not the main gap, but the missing working_dir semantics and lack of alternative guidance make it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'command' parameter ('Optionally pass a command to run inside the terminal window') but completely omits the 'working_dir' parameter. Thus only half of the parameters receive any meaningful explanation.

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 action ('Launch an interactive graphical terminal window') with a specific resource ('terminal') and environment ('inside Niri DE session'). It also provides examples of terminals (Alacritty, Kitty, Foot), which distinguishes it from generic spawn tools like niri_spawn_app and arch_exec_terminal_cmd.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for interactive terminals, but it does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools such as niri_spawn_app or arch_exec_terminal_cmd.

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