busybar_switch_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not meet it. It does not say what happens to the currently displayed app, whether the switch is reversible, what error is returned for a non-ready or misspelled name, or whether the pinned state persists across reconnects — all material for a state-mutating bar 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the prerequisite is stated before the action's target. It is efficient, though one more short clause on the effect of pinning would have cost nothing.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials (what to pass and where the value comes from) are covered. What is missing is the state-change semantics and error behavior, which matter because this tool alters what the busybar displays.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it tells the agent the value must be an *exact* name and that valid names come from busybar_list_apps. That is genuine added meaning beyond the bare `string` schema, but case sensitivity, formatting, and failure behavior for a bad name remain unspecified.

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 gives a specific verb ("Pin") and resource ("a ready app"), and explicitly names the sibling tool busybar_list_apps as the source of valid values, which helps separate it from the listing tool. The only gap is that the tool name says "switch" while the description says "pin", and "ready app" is never defined, leaving a small ambiguity about whether this changes the active app or just bookmarks it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it must first obtain a name from busybar_list_apps and that the app must be "ready", which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over siblings such as busybar_return_to_auto or bar_clear, nor what to do if the app is not in a ready state.

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