computer_launch_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Launch an application' and does not reveal whether the call waits for the app to open, returns a process handle, fails if the app is already running, or requires a desktop session. This is a significant gap for a tool that starts external programs.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool and front-loads the core action clearly.

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?

With two parameters already fully covered by the schema and a simple launch action, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain launch semantics or how it differs from the many sibling tools, particularly computer_open and computer_activate_window, so an agent selecting among 35 siblings receives only the bare minimum context.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly: 'app' is 'Application name or path' and 'args' is 'Optional list of arguments to pass to the application'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Launch') and a clear target ('an application'), so an agent can tell that this tool starts an app. However, it is almost a restatement of the tool name and does not differentiate this from sibling tools like computer_open, which could also launch an application in some contexts.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus computer_open, computer_activate_window, or computer_get_app_windows. It mentions no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer usage purely from sibling names.

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