App Start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does note that this is a write operation, but says nothing about permissions, whether the app must be installed/stopped first, whether the call is asynchronous (relevant given siblings like app_task_status), or how failures surface.

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 front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical tag and zero filler. It is tight and well-structured, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the routing or prerequisite 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?

The schema is fully described and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it omits essential context: prerequisites, async/task behavior, and relationship to app_stop/app_restart. The description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% and each of the five parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, app_name) is documented in the schema, including the app_name hint to use app_list's appName field. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ('启动应用' = start app) plus a mutation marker ('写操作'), so an agent immediately knows this starts a specific application. It is naturally distinguishable from app_stop/app_restart by verb semantics, but it never names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the app be installed? stopped?), and no mention of the alternatives app_restart or app_install. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical '(写操作)', which flags a mutation but does not route the agent between tools.

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