launch_isolated_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the isolated session mechanism (gamescope/virtual display), the guarantee of background automation/capture/input, and the key side-effect-free trait of zero host mouse movement or focus interference. It does not cover lifecycle details or errors, but it substantially informs an agent about runtime behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: isolation mechanism, automation guarantees, and the absence of host interference.

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 simple launch tool with one required parameter and only two optional sizing parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral guarantees. It does not mention return values or how to target the launched app with sibling tools, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature keep this from being a major gap.

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 100%: width, height, and command are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds general context about the isolated background session but not parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Launch'), a clear resource ('an application'), and defines the distinguishing scope ('inside an isolated background session (gamescope / virtual display)'). It immediately differentiates this from sibling window-control tools like window_click or capture_window, which operate on existing windows.

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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: when background automation, capture, and input are needed without host desktop interference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the isolated-session framing provides enough context to select it over the sibling window interaction tools.

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