open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a solid job: it reveals the boot side effect, the session-bound Metro/debug hint persistence and clearing behavior, and the 90-second timeout. It could also mention response or failure behavior, but the most decision-relevant side effects are disclosed.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler; core purpose is front-loaded, followed by selection guidance, binding behavior, and timeout. Every sentence earns its place.

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 32-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, session binding semantics, and timeout, which are the main non-obvious facts an agent needs. It does not enumerate output/response behavior or advanced flags, but the rich schema descriptions cover the parameter space, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 97%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between app/URL inputs and the foreground automation target, and by describing how Metro/debug hints become reusable session bindings. That extra context maps to parameters like metroHost and metroPort in a way the schema alone does not.

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 identifies a specific action—boot the selected device when needed, then open an app, deep link, or URL in a session—and adds the foreground-target qualifier, which differentiates it from generic actions like boot or apps. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of the highest bar.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when needed', 'use app or URL inputs') and explains how the session binding behaves on repeated opens. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, but the guidance is enough to select it appropriately among the sibling list.

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