Launch

Does 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 does not explain whether the app must be installed, what happens if it is already running, what stop_first does, device-selection behavior, or whether the call waits for launch completion.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient coverage of the tool’s behavior.

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 do not need explanation. Still, for a three-parameter action tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition omits too much about device targeting and stop_first behavior to be complete.

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 only clarifies the package parameter implicitly. It says nothing about the device or stop_first parameters, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: starting an app by package name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby automation tools such as tasker_run or run_routine.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the tool for launching apps rather than running tasks or routines.

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