app_launch

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: verification that the app becomes foreground. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover failure behavior, prerequisites beyond allowlisting, or what happens if verification fails. This is partial disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and verification without unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states the action and verification, but lacks details on edge cases like non-allowlisted packages or failed foreground verification, which would be useful.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify what package_name should contain (e.g., package ID vs. app name). The schema only states type and length, leaving the meaning of the parameter under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Launch') and identifies the resource (allowlisted package) plus the verification aspect (becomes foreground). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like app_stop or app_install.

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 implies usage for launching an app and confirming it reaches the foreground, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The 'allowlisted' constraint is mentioned but not elaborated.

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