launch_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the underlying command semantics (`am start -n`) and what it returns (am output and pid if resolvable). However, it says nothing about side effects of launching an activity, failure/error behavior, or interaction with an already-running activity, which are relevant for a state-changing operation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and example, with zero filler. Every clause (command form, return value) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at least address the `serial` parameter and basic failure behavior; it is adequate but incomplete.

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% for both parameters. The description partially compensates by showing the expected format of the required `component` parameter, but the `serial` parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb (Start) and resource (an explicit activity), and gives the concrete component format 'com.app/.MainActivity' plus the underlying `am start -n`. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling launch_package, so differentiation is only implied by the word 'explicit'.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is for launching a named component versus launch_package for a package name; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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