explore_app

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

The description discloses core behaviors: it launches the app, taps interactive elements, builds a state graph, and returns JSON. However, with no annotations provided, it omits important operational details such as potential side effects on app state, duration, or that tapping may trigger irreversible actions. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 concise at four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, method, output, and usage. It is well front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 description covers the what, how, output, and typical use, and the presence of an output schema covers return details. However, for an autonomous tool that launches and interacts with an app, it lacks warnings about side effects or guidance on controlling exploration via max_depth/max_states, making it incomplete for safe 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?

The description has zero coverage of the four parameters (device, package, max_depth, max_states). It neither mentions nor explains them, leaving only the property names and defaults to convey meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate and fails to do so.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Explore an app's UI autonomously using BFS.' It clearly explains the workflow (launches app, taps elements, builds state graph) and distinguishes itself from sibling UI inspection tools by emphasizing the autonomous exploration and output format.

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 an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this to understand an unfamiliar app before writing automation for it.' This gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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