app.launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one important behavior — that it blocks until the foreground is idle — which is useful. But it does not state what happens if the package does not exist, whether an existing instance is reused, or whether it fails/returns an error.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the blocking behavior are both stated immediately.

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 simple one-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but acceptable. It is missing failure modes and whether it waits for a specific activity, which would help an agent recover from launch failures.

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% and the single parameter 'pkg' has no description. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name, but with only one obvious param (package identifier) the baseline is 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 specific verb+resource: '启动应用' launches an app. It adds the scope '并等待前台空闲' (waits for foreground idle), distinguishing it from app.wait_idle or app.current. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, keeping it from a 5.

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 on when to use this versus app.list, app.current, or app.wait_idle. The description implies launch-then-wait, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or that app.wait_idle can be called separately.

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