launch_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects (opening apps), the macOS quirk (windows jump into place), the per-app success reporting, and the up-to-a-minute wait 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 detailed yet efficient, with each sentence contributing unique information (launching, positioning, macOS limitation, return values, timing). No redundant or verbose content.

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 covers the entire behavior: what it does, how it handles limitations, what it returns (per-app success and failure reports), and the expected duration. This gives the agent full context to decide on invocation and interpret results.

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 provides type and description for 'screen', but 'name' lacked a description. The tool description's reference to 'saved workspace' gives enough context to infer that 'name' identifies the workspace to launch, adding semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: launching a saved workspace by opening non-running apps, waiting for windows, and positioning them. It distinguishes from similar tools like apply_saved_layout by explicitly mentioning app launching.

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 provides strong usage context, including macOS limitations and timing expectations. It implies when to use this tool (to restore a workspace with apps), though it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools.

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