launch_dev_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the deep-link construction, default host/port behavior, and the embedded-bundle fallback when adb_reverse is not set. It doesn't document the return value or post-launch behavior, but the core operational traits are transparent.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and directly useful. The main verb and outcome are front-loaded, the prerequisite and alternative are clearly flagged, and no words are wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite setup, fallback behavior, parameter sources, and distinction from a sibling tool. For a tool with five parameters and a specific launch flow, this is a complete and actionable description.

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 input schema already provides rich descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), including defaults and device-visibility notes. The description adds context for scheme's source (app.json) and host/port defaults, but these largely repeat or infer what the schema already states, so the added semantic value is limited.

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 a specific action: launching an Expo dev build directly at a Metro dev server, bypassing the Dev Launcher's server-picker. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open_url for plain Expo Go, which is a key sibling differentiator.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (dev build vs Expo Go) and names the alternative (open_url with exp://). It also gives a clear prerequisite (adb_reverse tcp:8081) and explains the consequence of skipping it, offering concrete operational guidance.

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