launch_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and excels. It discloses key behaviors: opens only non-running apps, waits for windows, restores saved positions, handles multi-monitor setups, notes the macOS limitation causing windows to jump, reports per-app success, and warns about extended execution time for large workspaces.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the primary action and then expands into critical behavioral details. Every sentence contributes value: function, multi-monitor behavior, macOS limitation, return status, and performance note. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the necessary operational details: what happens during launch, platform-specific limitations, return information, and time expectations. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand the full scope and output without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. While 'name' is self-explanatory from the context, the description does not explicitly elaborate on it, and 'screen' is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little beyond schema semantics.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a saved workspace' and elaborates on the exact behaviors (opens apps, moves windows to saved positions, restores multi-monitor layout). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_workspace or apply_layout.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool does and its scope, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like apply_saved_layout. The unique behavior of launching apps and restoring multi-monitor positions implies its intended use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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