abrir_ypt

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added details matter more: it discloses the USB-tethered prerequisite and clarifies the side effect that no timer is started. It does not cover failure behavior when no phone is connected, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying negative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive launch tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential precondition (USB-connected phone) and the notable non-effect (no timer started). Only edge-case behavior such as what happens if the device is disconnected is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No parameter claims are made or contradicted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Abre o app YPT") plus the target location ("tela inicial do celular conectado por USB"), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like abrir_soundcloud. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just 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?

The clause "Não inicia nenhum cronômetro" implicitly tells the agent this is the choice when the app should be opened without starting a timer, which is a useful exclusion. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over abrir_soundcloud or tocar_pasta, leaving the routing to inference.

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