Launch App

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it reveals genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool does not guess on ambiguous names but returns ranked candidates. That is important context beyond what the schema alone would provide. It omits failure modes and device context, but the core launch and disambiguation behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with the main action front-loaded and the disambiguation rule following naturally. There is no filler, and every phrase adds information an agent needs.

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 simple launch tool, the description covers the normal call patterns and the key ambiguous-name behavior, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be described. The main gaps are the role of the device parameter and the lack of comparison to start_app, but the tool is largely usable from this definition alone.

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 description must compensate; it does map 'name' to the app_name parameter and 'package' to the package parameter, including its disambiguation role. However, the device parameter is never mentioned, and the description does not state valid combinations or formats for the package and app_name values.

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 action and resource: 'Open an app by name (fuzzy) or exact package.' It also adds a distinctive behavioral detail about returning ranked candidates for ambiguous names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate launch_app from the sibling start_app, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

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 provides practical guidance for the main decision: use a fuzzy name or an exact package, and if the name is ambiguous, 'pass package to pick one' instead of letting the tool guess. This is clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like start_app or lookup_app.

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