niri_spawn_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the action (launch) and context, but does not disclose whether the process is detached, asynchronous, or returns any status. It does not mention potential errors or side effects, which is a moderate gap for a spawning tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives examples, making it concise and easy to scan.

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 simple spawn tool with one parameter, the description is quite complete: it identifies the action, the context (Niri session), and examples. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. Missing details about process behavior are minor for this use case.

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?

The schema only defines a string 'command', but the description adds meaning by explaining it as a desktop application or shell command, and provides concrete examples like 'kitty' and 'firefox'. This significantly clarifies what values are expected.

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 launches a desktop application or shell command, with specific verb 'Launch' and resource 'desktop application or shell command'. Examples are provided, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on windows, workspaces, or terminal-specific commands.

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 gives clear context (in the Niri session) and examples, making the intended use obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as arch_spawn_terminal for terminal-specific launches.

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