adl_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonably good job: it discloses that no paths/commands/shell are passed, that no input or focus changes occur, and crucially that quit only affects instances this server launched. What it omits is what status returns, whether launch is blocking, and what failure modes look like.

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 sentence opens with the core action set, front-loading what the agent needs most. The three consecutive 'never ...' clauses are slightly repetitive but each adds a distinct safety boundary. No wasted preamble or filler.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers safety boundaries and quit scope well. It is still incomplete on the return value of 'status' (no output schema exists to compensate), the blocking behavior of 'launch', and how this tool relates to adl_open/adl_close.

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 must compensate. It does clarify that application_id identifies a configured opted-in application rather than a file path or command, which is real added meaning. But it doesn't explain what 'status' reports, what 'launch' does beyond being in the background, or how invalid IDs are treated, leaving the enum values under-specified.

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 set of verbs (status, background-launch, quit) acting on a specific resource (the one configured opted-in application). An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like adl_open or adl_close, which sound like overlapping application-lifecycle operations.

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 'never ...' clauses describe behavioral limits, not when to choose this tool over adl_open, adl_close, or adl_execute. There is no positive routing guidance, no prerequisite mentioned (e.g., that the app must appear in adl_applications first), and no explicit exclusion criteria an agent can act on.

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