open_deep_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. The verify/verify_poll_ms/verify_timeout_ms parameters imply post-open screen verification, but the description never explains this behavior, leaving a mutation-style action opaque.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 5-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input domain but omits behavioral essentials: whether the link opens on the device, whether verification is automatic, and what a failed resolution looks like. The schema fills parameter details, but behavioral context is thin.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (though several descriptions are in Chinese, limiting accessibility). The description adds only the informal hint that the target may be a URL, market link, custom scheme, or intent, which is marginal value over the schema's 'e.g. https://... or app://...'.

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 ('Opens') and resource ('deep link / URL (or intent)'), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'launch_app', which is a plausible alternative for opening app-related targets, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

'Use for URLs, market links, custom schemes' gives implied context about what inputs this fits, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. versus launch_app) and no prerequisites such as requiring a device/app in a ready state. Usage is inferable but not operationalized.

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