Open And Settle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose real behavior: the call blocks until the app is foregrounded and idle. It omits failure modes (what happens on timeout, app not installed, permission needed) and does not explain what 'in front' or 'idle' concretely mean, which matters for a tool with side effects.

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; the primary action verb comes first and the wait semantics follow. Every word earns its place.

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 explained, but for a mutating four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is thin: it never explains the idle/timeout/device parameters, the failure behavior, or how it differs from sibling start/wait tools.

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% and none of the four parameters are documented anywhere. The description's mention of 'idle' loosely hints at the idle parameter but gives no units, thresholds, or meaning, and says nothing about idle/timeout interplay or the device selector.

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+resource ('Start an app') plus the completion condition ('wait until it is in front and idle'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as start_app, launch_app, and wait_for_idle, leaving the agent to guess which entry point is intended.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite obvious overlap with start_app, launch_app, wait_for_app, and wait_for_idle. The agent must infer that this is a combined start-then-wait convenience tool from the description alone, which is exactly the kind of routing the description should make explicit.

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