open_affinity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the action: whether launching is conditional, what happens on failure, what is returned, or what the screenshot_after side effect does. The 'or bring to the front' clause is the only behavioral detail offered.

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 the action and target both stated immediately; no filler, nothing to trim.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, one sentence is insufficient. The undefined screenshot_after behavior and lack of return/error semantics leave real gaps an agent cannot fill from structured data.

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?

There is one parameter (screenshot_after, default true) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent has to infer from the field name alone that a screenshot is captured after opening, which is exactly the kind of side effect the description should clarify.

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 pair (launch/bring to front) and a specific resource (the Affinity app), so the agent knows exactly what happens. The siblings are all generic UI primitives (click, type_text, scroll), so this app-lifecycle tool is evidently distinct without needing to name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when this should be used versus the generic interaction tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that it's needed before other Affinity interactions if the app isn't running). The one clause 'or bring to the front' hints at idempotence but is not framed as usage advice.

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