Launch an Android app by package via its LAUNCHER intent, returning the package, PID, and status for device automation.
Launch an app by package via its LAUNCHER intent (idempotent). Returns {package, pid, status}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| package | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotence, but omits permission requirements, device serial behavior, error cases, and whether launching brings the app to the foreground.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and idempotence, then the return shape. It is well-sized, though the return shape duplicates the output schema and therefore does not fully earn 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?
With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is only partially complete. Purpose and idempotence are covered, but the serial parameter and usage relative to launch_activity are absent.
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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'package' but never mentions the optional 'serial' parameter or what it controls, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 ('Launch'), resource ('app by package'), and mechanism ('LAUNCHER intent'), which differentiates it from launch_activity in the sibling set. An agent can identify the right tool from this description alone.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The phrase 'by package' implies a condition, but it does not say when to prefer launch_activity or how to handle missing packages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.