launch_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says what gets launched. It does not disclose that verify polling, timeouts, and stop_before_launch exist as behaviors, nor what happens when the package is missing or what the call returns. Those traits live only in schema field descriptions, leaving the narrative thin for a side-effecting action 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the helper reference. Nothing extraneous is included.

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?

The description covers the primary parameters but leaves out the behavioral story that matters for a 6-parameter, annotation-free action tool with verification polling and stop_before_launch. It is adequate to invoke the tool, but not complete enough to predict its side effects or failure modes.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented, and the description only restates package/activity at a high level. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no format, defaulting, or interaction detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launches an app by package name') with the optional activity qualifier, so an agent immediately knows the action. It names list_installed_apps as a helper for obtaining the package, but does not distinguish itself from action siblings that also open apps, such as open_deep_link.

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 clause 'Use list_installed_apps to find package names' gives a concrete precondition for the required parameter, which is real guidance. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never contrasts this tool with open_deep_link, install_apk, or stop_app, so selection among overlapping siblings is left to inference.

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