iphone_open_url

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 reveals the useful trait that web pages go through Safari, but says nothing about what happens when a custom scheme has no registered handler, whether the call blocks until the app opens, whether it returns anything, or what errors to expect from a device-side action.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and adds the Safari behavior in parentheses. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is minimal but workable. It omits return behavior and failure modes for unsupported schemes, which matters for a tool that causes a real device-side side effect.

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%, so the schema adds no meaning to `url`. The description partially compensates by stating that the parameter accepts both ordinary links and URL Schemes, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but it still gives no format examples, scheme syntax, or encoding requirements.

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 pairs the specific verb "打开" (open) with the resource "链接或 URL Scheme", and notes the concrete outcome that web pages open in Safari. This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like iphone_launch_app, but does not say so explicitly by name.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives. It does not say when to prefer iphone_open_url, which opens a URL or URL scheme, over iphone_launch_app, which launches an app, even though an agent could plausibly confuse the two.

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