Desktop Launch

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does very little with it. It does not say whether the call blocks until launch completes, what happens if the application is not installed or already running, or whether it requires an active display session; an output schema exists, so return values are the only thing legitimately omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted above rather than from disciplined editing.

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 launch tool with zero annotation coverage and entirely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine the accepted format of "app" or the effect of "activate" from the description, and the output schema only covers return values, not the conditions that determine success.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains whether "app" is an executable name, path, or bundle identifier, and "activate" (default true) is never mentioned — the "wait for its window" phrase suggests a capability that may or may not correspond to that flag.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ("Launch a desktop application"), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like desktop_close_app, desktop_focus_window, or desktop_list_apps. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other desktop lifecycle operations, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as desktop_focus_window (for an already-running app) or desktop_status. The phrase "optionally wait for its window to appear" hints at a pre-condition pattern but never states when waiting is appropriate or how to request it.

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