launch

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: launching in the background, Windows briefly flashing Settings pages, returning foreground, verification of folder/document opening, DevTools port exposure, Steam readability, and restart refusal while a game runs. It does not explain the effects of then or wait_s, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 information is dense and mostly relevant, but it is delivered as a run-on block with nested parentheticals and inconsistent structure. It starts with the main purpose, yet later details about Steam and DevTools are hard to scan and would be clearer as separated sections.

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 six-parameter, behaviorally complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical app argument and many special cases well. However, then and wait_s are unexplained, args is under-specified, and the result of 'see it' is not fully clear.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents app formats and adds useful semantics for devtools and restart, but args is described only as 'arguments,' and then and wait_s are not mentioned at all despite being part of the six-parameter 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 states a specific action and resource: opening an application in the background and seeing it, with explicit support for apps, folders, documents, and address schemes. It is clearly distinct from act, look, and window, though it does not explicitly route against those siblings.

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?

It gives concrete conditional guidance: devtools only for Chromium/Electron/Edge and only when the application is not already open, restart only when already open and refused during games, and address schemes opened by their associated app. It lacks broad guidance on when to use launch instead of act, window, or look.

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