open_application

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

There are no annotations to convey safety or side effects, so the description must carry that burden. It states the operation but does not disclose what happens when the app is already running, whether focus changes, whether permission is needed, or what the tool returns.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target with no redundant words. The identification options are packed efficiently at the end.

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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. An agent still cannot tell whether it can call the tool with no arguments, which selector is preferred, how the `activate` boolean changes behavior, or what success looks like.

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 names `name`, `pid`, and `bundle_id` as selectors, which helps, but it leaves `activate` completely unexplained and does not clarify precedence, optionality, or relationships among the parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Launch or activate'), a resource ('an application'), and the identifier options ('name, pid, or bundle_id'). This is clear and distinct from the mouse/window/display sibling tools, but the 'launch or activate' phrasing leaves the exact mode of operation ambiguous.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_apps or get_app_state. There is no mention of why an agent might prefer one identifier over another, nor any exclusions.

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