Launch an app, folder or document

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description focus on outcome attribution is the valuable addition: it explains the 'process' vs 'application' proof types and flags other new windows as candidates with unknown outcome. It does not address failure modes (app not found, permission issues) or what 'give the foreground back to the user' means practically.

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?

Front-loaded with the launchable input forms, then the return semantics. It is one dense run-on sentence with parentheticals, which makes it heavier to parse than necessary, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter launch tool with no output schema, the description covers accepted inputs, the shape of the return value (attributed windows with proof types) and the ambiguity caveat, which is what an agent needs. Missing are error/partial-success behavior and any note on blocking versus async launch timing.

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% for the single required `app` parameter, so the description must carry it – and it does, enumerating the accepted forms (name, absolute path, Store app id, ms-settings: URI). It stops short of specifying format edge cases such as quoting or how relative paths are resolved.

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?

States a specific verb and full resource scope: applications (by name, absolute path or Store app id), folders, documents and ms-settings pages. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like windows/look/act because the description is clearly about initiating a launch and the windows it produces, though it never names the siblings directly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it's the tool to call when you want something started, and 'Look at one before acting' hints at following up with an inspection tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among windows/look/window, so the agent must infer routing.

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