ACTION_APP_SEARCH

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it names the exact result keys (app_list, app_count, app_search_success, app_search_error), the per-item fields, the variable-snapshot return model, and the visibility limitation. It omits permission requirements and any note on performance or pagination for large app sets.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences each add a distinct fact (output keys, item fields, visibility caveat, params requirement, interpolation). Slightly run-on with a doubled '。。' artifact, but no real padding.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return structure and the per-item shape, plus the params-field invocation trap. Enough to call it correctly; only error semantics (what app_search_error looks like) and permission prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 100%, so every parameter (query, require, sort_by, on_error, output_var, max_results, include_system, node_timeout_ms) is already documented. The description only adds the cross-cutting note that string parameters accept ${var} interpolation and that app_list is always written, which is marginal on top of the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: search installed apps, returning a JSON array. The scope (installed apps only, per-item fields listed) makes it distinguishable from ACTION_GET_APP_INFO or ACTION_LAUNCH_APP, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an important usage caveat (Android 11+ package visibility hides apps without launcher icons) and a hard invocation requirement (the node must carry a params field, else it does nothing). It does not say when to prefer this over ACTION_GET_APP_INFO or ACTION_LAUNCH_APP, so routing guidance is only implied.

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