launch_app_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Launches') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the app must be installed first, what happens if the app is already running, error conditions, or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second specifies required parameters. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by adding essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) and output information. It meets minimum viability but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 100%, with both parameters ('deviceId' and 'bundleId') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'deviceId' is described as 'UDID of the device (obtained from list_devices)'). The description mentions these parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying their necessity. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Launches an app'), the target resource ('on a physical Apple device'), and enumerates the supported device types (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro). It distinguishes from siblings like 'launch_app_sim' (for simulators) and 'launch_mac_app' (for Mac apps) by specifying physical devices.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (launching apps on physical Apple devices) and mentions prerequisites ('Requires deviceId and bundleId'), with 'deviceId' explicitly linked to 'list_devices'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for simulators or Mac apps) or name alternative tools like 'launch_app_sim', though the context is implied by specifying physical devices.

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