Open Application

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It adds the valuable behavioral detail that focus is not taken unless activate=true, and hints at both resolution and launching. However, it doesn't explain what 'resolve' means operationally, nor does it disclose the specific side effects of launching (e.g., creating new processes or potentially affecting existing app state).

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The most decision-relevant behavioral fact (focus is not taken unless activate is true) is front-loaded, making it immediately usable for an agent evaluating the 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 description, combined with the detailed schema and annotations, covers the main selection and invocation requirements. The primary gaps are the ambiguous 'Resolve or launch' phrase and the absence of any return-value indication, especially since no output schema exists. These are moderate but do not prevent correct usage in most scenarios.

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 67% and the nested app properties are well described in the schema. The description adds meaning for the 'activate' parameter by clarifying focus behavior, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 'app' property or elaborate on how to choose among bundle_id, name, or pid variants. The schema does most of the parameter-semantic heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb combination ('Resolve or launch') and clearly identifies the resource ('an application'), while adding a key distinguishing behavior ('without taking foreground focus unless activate is true'). This makes it immediately distinct from query-oriented siblings like list_apps and get_app_state without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 the tool: when an application needs to be resolved or launched, with the important caveat about focus behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can determine appropriateness from the sibling names and this description.

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