アプリ起動

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool launches an app and can pass parameters, which is the core behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether launching an app switches input, whether it brings the app to foreground, whether it requires the device to be powered on, or what happens if the app is already running). For a launch operation, these are meaningful behavioral traits that an agent might need to know.

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, compact sentence in Japanese that front-loads the core action and app ID examples, then mentions the optional parameter capability. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, one required, and a nested object for params. The schema covers all parameters, and the description provides examples. However, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, launched app info). For a launch action, an agent might want to know if it returns a status or error. Given the moderate complexity and lack of annotations, a 3 is fair.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (appId, device, params). The description adds a concrete example of appId values and clarifies that params are optional ('任意で'). It also explains the device parameter's default resolution in the schema itself. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is already thorough, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (起動する = launch), the resource (アプリ = app), and provides concrete examples of app IDs (netflix, youtube.leanback.v4, com.webos.app.hdmi1). It also mentions optional launch parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_app, list_apps, and get_current_app. The title 'アプリ起動' reinforces the purpose without being a mere tautology.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to launch an app by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes close_app, list_apps, get_current_app, and open_url, which are clearly different operations. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for launching apps, though explicit exclusions would push it to 5.

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