fire_tv_launch

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

With no annotations, the description assumes full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the start/stop action and foreground verification but omits critical details such as the destructive nature of 'stop' (which kills an app), required permissions, potential side effects, or what the verification entails. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, earning a high conciseness score.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (one required) and a no output schema, and the description is minimal. It fails to explain parameter values, error conditions, usage context, or how 'verify foreground state' is performed. An agent would need additional information to invoke the tool reliably, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only hints at 'package' through 'one installed Android package' and at 'action' through 'start or stop', but it does not clarify allowed values, the purpose of 'transition_delay', or how these parameters interact. This falls short of the compensation required for low schema coverage.

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 the action ('Start or stop'), the resource ('one installed Android package'), and adds a verification step ('verify foreground state'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_tv_press or fire_tv_type_text, which focus on input events rather than app lifecycle management.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer from the tool name and description alone. This meets the minimum bar but lacks the explicit 'when to use' direction expected from a well-documented tool.

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