launch_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Launch' which implies starting a process, but it doesn't disclose whether the call blocks, returns a process ID, requires a display, or what happens on failure. The only extra behavior mentioned is 'routed through UWSM scope if active', which is cryptic and not explained. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, it is slightly terse, omitting some useful context that could be included without sacrificing conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured for its length.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It does not mention return behavior, whether the call is asynchronous, or how the 'is_tui' parameter affects execution. Given the sibling tool run_command, the description could better clarify when to use this tool versus a generic command runner. The UWSM scope mention is unexplained, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both 'app' and 'is_tui' described clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already provides adequate semantic detail, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clear verb (launch) and resource (desktop application or background command), which is specific enough to indicate the primary action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_command, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over a generic command runner. The mention of 'UWSM scope' adds a context clue but doesn't clarify the exact distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command. The description does not state any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The UWSM scope note is a routing detail, not a usage guideline. An agent would have to infer when to choose this over other process-related tools.

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