launch_app

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the launch mechanism (monkey command), which is useful context a schema cannot express, but it says nothing about permissions required, what happens on a missing/invalid package, or whether the launch is blocking.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the implementation detail parenthesized at the end. Nothing is wasted and no ambiguity is introduced.

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 single-parameter, single-purpose launch tool with a full schema and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing pieces are prerequisites (app installed/device ready) and failure behavior, which are minor at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter is documented with an example format (com.example.app), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the package name identifies the target app, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 (启动/launch) and resource (指定包名的 Android 应用) with the package name as the target, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like install_apk or force_stop_app by implication, but never names an alternative or contrast explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as install_apk, force_stop_app, or get_current_activity, nor any stated precondition (e.g., app must be installed, device must be connected). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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