Launch a GUI application inside a disposable Windows guest with quoted arguments, optional accessibility mode, and a loopback CDP port for browser debugging.
Launch guest GUI with quoted arguments. Accessibility adds Chromium flag; CDP port opt-in is guest loopback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cdp_port | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| executable | No | notepad.exe | |
| accessibility | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered externally. The description adds some behavioral detail beyond them: the accessibility flag injects a Chromium flag and the CDP port is scoped to guest loopback. This is genuinely useful but terse and cryptic for a destructive launch operation.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the second sentence compresses several distinct behaviors into a slightly opaque clause.
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 4-param, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description covers some flag side effects but omits what the tool returns, what the default executable implies, and any interaction with the guest lifecycle siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive launch tool.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It touches three of four params (arguments are quoted, accessibility adds a Chromium flag, cdp_port is guest loopback) but leaves executable unexplained and gives no format/defaults detail, only partially compensating for the coverage gap.
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 verb ("Launch") and a resource ("guest GUI"), which gives a rough sense of the action. However, "guest GUI" is vague and the description never distinguishes this tool from the many related siblings (sandbox_exec, sandbox_start, sandbox_browser), so an agent cannot confidently route between them without opening schemas.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the host of sibling launch/exec/browser tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The reader must infer the entire selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.