launch_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well by disclosing that the app launches in the background, returns immediately, does not wait for completion, and auto-selects a compiler when none is specified. This goes beyond the minimal mutation description and gives the agent an accurate behavioral model.

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 organized with a clear first sentence, a usage paragraph, follow-up action guidance, and an Args section. Every part earns its place, and the key distinguishing behavior is front-loaded at the top.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, how it differs from siblings, what parameters mean, and what to do after launching. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in prose.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining source_code meaning a complete Pascal GUI program with VCL/FMX forms and by detailing compiler as a type name ('fpc', 'dcc32', 'dcc64') or a compiler path with auto-selection behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compile Pascal source and launch the GUI application in background.' It clearly targets GUI applications, mentions VCL/FMX, and directly distinguishes itself from run_pascal by noting it does not wait for the program to finish.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for GUI applications that need to stay running so the agent can interact with them. It names the alternative run_pascal and explains the key difference, and also suggests follow-up tools like preview_start and screenshot_app, giving clear next steps.

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