launch_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism ('uses its main launcher activity') and supports a specific activity, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing package, invalid activity) or side effects. Some behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 zero waste. It communicates both primary and secondary usage without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (3 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the app is not installed) and lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 complete descriptions for all three parameters (serial, package, activity) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb 'Launch' and resource 'app', with two clear modes (by package or specific activity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_app, uninstall_app, and terminate_app, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool (to launch an app or activity) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough, but it lacks exclusionary guidance that would fully route the agent.

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