simulate_background

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool blocks until the app returns to foreground, whether it's safe/non-destructive, whether there's any risk to app state, or what observable effects occur. For a control-action tool that alters app lifecycle, this is a notable gap.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly concise for the complexity level of this tool.

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 a simple schema (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects). However, given it's an imperative action that mutates app state (even temporarily), it could benefit from notes on expected outcomes or verification steps. Adequate for a simple tool but not exceptional given it's a lifecycle-control action.

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 100% and the single param 'duration_ms' is documented as 'How long to keep the app in the background'. The description adds context by mentioning the complete lifecycle simulation (going to background AND coming back), which frames the duration parameter's role. With one well-described param at full schema coverage, baseline 3 plus modest added context justifies a 4.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: simulates app entering background and returning to foreground. Specific verb 'simulates' with resource 'app' and a clear lifecycle action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like start_app/stop_app, though its purpose is distinct enough to be understood.

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 usage for testing lifecycle behavior but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No exclusionary guidance or mention of related tools. The context of 'simulate background' is clear but the agent gets no framing about why one would do this or what to check after.

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