launch_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important implementation detail—the use of the monkey tool and default activity fallback—but it omits side effects, return behavior, failure conditions, or permission requirements.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral detail about the fallback mechanism. 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 simple launch tool, the description covers the main launch behavior and the activity fallback adequately. However, the serial parameter is undocumented, the tool does not describe success/failure signaling, and there are no annotations to fill in safety or side-effect context.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the package parameter with an example and clarifies the activity parameter's default behavior, but it does not explain the serial parameter at all, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 launches an app by package name, with a concrete example ('com.android.settings'). It communicates the core action and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like open_app_and_wait or foreground_app.

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 gives useful conditional guidance: if activity is not supplied, the launcher activity is started via monkey, described as the most reliable way to launch an app by package name alone. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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