aua_launch_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description usefully reinforces the non-idempotent, non-destructive nature by stating it launches once and performs no force-stop or data reset. It does not disclose what happens on failure (package not installed, no launcher activity) or that the app is brought to the foreground, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the missing parameter and post-launch behavior detail rather than through disciplined editing.

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 tool with three parameters, a nested wait condition, and no output schema, the description should explain that `observe` controls whether a tree/screenshot is returned and that `wait_for` blocks until a selector appears or disappears. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or the blocking behavior.

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, and it only touches the required `package` parameter obliquely. The `observe` enum (none/tree/screenshot/both) and the nested `wait_for` condition with timeout are entirely unexplained, despite materially changing what the call returns and how long it blocks.

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?

"Launch an installed package's launcher activity" names a specific verb and resource, and "once" scopes the action. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as aua_apps (package discovery) or aua_screen_action (post-launch interaction), so an agent must infer routing.

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?

"no force-stop or data reset" implies a boundary condition (this is a plain start, not a restart/clear) and "once" warns against repeated calls, which gives implicit usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over aua_apps or how it relates to aua_observe/aua_wait for post-launch inspection.

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