Apple Open Application

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

Annotations already communicate read-only vs. destructive vs. idempotent characteristics, and the description adds little beyond restating the core action. It does not disclose activation vs. launch behavior, error cases, or what happens when both name and bundle identifier are provided.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and containing only the key identification method. It is easy to parse and retains no redundant information.

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 two-parameter launch tool with an output schema, the description is largely usable but not complete. It fails to state that at least one parameter is needed, and it does not address the overlapping presence of system_open_application, which leaves an agent uncertain about correct routing.

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?

The schema descriptions are 0% covered, so the description's phrase 'using its name or bundle identifier' does add useful mapping to the two optional parameters. However, it does not clarify whether at least one is required, which takes precedence if both are supplied, or how exact the name/bundle identifier match must be.

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 ('Open an application'), the target resource, and the means of identifying it ('name or bundle identifier'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool system_open_application, which appears to serve the same core purpose.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over system_open_application or other launching/control tools in the sibling list. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.

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