open_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool may launch the application (a state-changing action) and requires prior access granting. However, it omits details on error handling, return values, or whether it silently fails if the app is not allowed. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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: the first states the action, the second the prerequisite. Every word is necessary, no fluff, and it is front-loaded efficiently.

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 low complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a critical prerequisite. It references the sibling tool request_access appropriately. Minor missing elements like error behavior or return format do not significantly detract from completeness for this simple operation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'app' parameter (display name or bundle ID). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action 'bring an application to the front' and the resource 'application', with the additional nuance of launching if necessary. It distinguishes itself from siblings like request_access and list_granted_applications by directly mentioning the allowlist prerequisite, making its 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 explicitly directs to call request_access first if the app is not in the allowlist, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies its specific role.

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