quest_launch

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Launch an app') and the target identifier ('package name'), but does not disclose what happens after launch (e.g., whether it returns success/failure, if it waits for the app to start, or errors on missing apps). It also fails to mention that launching is a state-changing operation or whether it requires authentication/device permissions.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a concrete example. Every word contributes value; there is no wasted or redundant text. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be longer to cover missing details, but conciseness is well-executed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value, error handling, or side effects. It also leaves device_id unexplained, which is necessary for multi-device environments. While the tool is simple, the lack of behavioral and parameter completeness makes it difficult for an agent to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

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 for both parameters. It adds meaning for package_name by explaining its purpose and format with an example, but it completely omits any explanation of device_id, including its default behavior (null) or how to select a specific headset. This leaves a significant gap for one of the two 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: launching an app on the headset by package name. It uses a specific verb ('Launch') and identifies the resource ('app on the headset') and the method ('by package name'), with an example that illustrates the expected input format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_install (install) and quest_stop (stop).

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 implies the tool is used to start an installed app on the headset, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as quest_launch_benchmark (which likely launches with performance measurements). There are no clear exclusions or scenarios where this tool should not be used, and no mention of prerequisites like the app being installed or the device being connected.

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