tv_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only hints at behavior ("learned route avoids image capture"). It does not say what "non-stub" excludes, what permissions are needed, how failures surface, or how the learned route is chosen.

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, though the second clause is cryptic enough that brevity comes partly at the cost of meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a launch tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage the description leaves too much unexplained to call this complete.

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 must compensate, but it only obliquely touches the capture parameter ("avoids image capture") without explaining the auto/never/always enum, and app_id is never addressed.

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?

It gives a verb ("Launch") and a resource ("installed non-stub app"), so the core action is identifiable, but "non-stub" and "learned route" are unexplained jargon and there is no differentiation from nearby siblings like tv_app_action or tv_apps.

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 statement of when to use this versus tv_app_action, tv_apps, or tv_ui_run, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.