as_run_app

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

The description details the full sequence: assemble, install, launch, capture logcat, optional screenshot, and crash detection. It adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It could mention that install overwrites existing APK, but that is implied.

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 concise: a front-loaded sentence, a brief analogy to Android Studio, and a bullet list of steps and arguments. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (build, install, launch, log capture, screenshot), the description covers the main process, inputs, and output structure (steps, apk path, crash detection). It could mention prerequisites like adb connection, but that is standard for device operations.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters in RunAppInput, so schema coverage is high. The description only lists the parameter names and adds no additional semantics beyond summarizing the return structure. Thus, it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build, install and launch an app on a device/emulator, then capture logs.' It identifies the verb and resource, and the 'one-shot equivalent of Android Studio's Run button' distinguishes it from siblings like as_gradle_assemble, as_adb_install, and as_adb_logcat.

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 explains what the tool does and positions it as a one-shot run command, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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