mobile_install_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: remote path resolution, background execution, and the need to poll with mobile_install_status. It also notes the return envelope carries an install id. This goes beyond a bare 'install' statement and gives the agent essential operational expectations.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, two important caveats, a compact Args section, and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the most critical usage facts are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter install tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: how to identify the device, where the package path must live, the background nature, and how to follow up. It could optionally mention failure/exit behavior, but the status tool and return envelope are enough for correct invocation.

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 does thoroughly. It explains serialno as 'the mobile device serialno, from list_devices' and app_path as 'Package path on the agent host' with a concrete example. Both parameters are fully clarified beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair, 'Install a package on the device,' which unambiguously states what the tool does. It further clarifies the asynchronous behavior and names the companion status tool, distinguishing it from mobile_install_status.

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 gives clear context on how to invoke it: the path resolves on the agent host, not locally, and the install is a background task that must be polled with mobile_install_status. It does not explicit list exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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