apple_system_open_app

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

Annotations already cover mutation/safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the launch-vs-activate nuance, implying an already-running app is brought forward rather than relaunched. It says nothing about behavior for unsupported apps, whether it steals focus, or any error/consent behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity is the source of the gaps elsewhere rather than a sign of disciplined editing.

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 one-parameter launch tool with annotations and an enum, the description is close to sufficient but leaves real gaps: what happens on an unsupported/uninstalled app, whether the call is a no-op when already running, and whether focus is brought forward. Nothing about return values is needed since there is no output schema.

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 carries the burden for the single 'app' parameter, yet it only says 'supported Apple app'. The 23-value enum in the schema does the real work; the description never explains accepted values, case sensitivity, or whether app names must match the enum exactly.

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?

States a specific verb pair (launch/activate) and resource (a supported Apple app), which is enough to distinguish it from the document-scoped openers like apple_pages_open or apple_keynote_open. It does not explicitly call out that it opens the application itself rather than a document, but the wording implies it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. With many app-specific 'open' siblings in the list, the agent gets no help deciding between this generic launcher and e.g. apple_numbers_open or apple_safari_open_tab.

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