open_app_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavior: it starts the app and waits until the app is truly in the foreground, and it frames the tool as a compound of launch and check operations. However, it does not explain what happens on timeout or failure, despite exposing a timeout_seconds parameter.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies why it exists and when it is useful. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description clearly conveys the core purpose and differentiates the tool from siblings, but it leaves important gaps: no parameter guidance, no timeout/failure behavior, and no context on what the output means. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the missing behavioral and parameter detail is significant for a state-changing tool with no annotations.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The role of 'timeout_seconds' is especially relevant to the described waiting behavior but is not mentioned, and 'serial' is left entirely to its name and default.

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 uses a specific verb (inditasa), a specific resource (app), and a clear expected outcome (waiting until it actually reaches the foreground). It explicitly contrasts itself with 'launch_app' and 'foreground_app', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 names the alternatives ('launch_app' + repeated 'foreground_app' checks) and gives a concrete use case: use this when you need certainty the app launched before proceeding. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the simpler alternatives or when this combined approach should be avoided, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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