Open Deeplink

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral constraint: intent:, file:, content: and javascript: URI schemes are refused, plus the pinning role of package_name/app_name. It stops short of stating what happens on launch failure, whether the navigation can leave the device in an unexpected state, or how device selection behaves, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the URI-source hint and the refusal constraint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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. However, for a side-effecting navigation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the `package` vs `package_name` distinction and device targeting unresolved, which are real invocation risks.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers only package_name and app_name (as app-pinning), and even that leaves the separate `package` parameter completely unaccounted for, creating ambiguity about which one wins. The `device` and `uri` format parameters get no semantic explanation beyond the URI examples.

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 concrete action and resource: jump to a screen via URI, with the accepted URI families (app-shortcut://pkg/id, intent action) spelled out. It also names list_app_deeplinks as the origin of the shortcut URIs, which helps an agent route between siblings. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling open_deep_link or resolve_deeplink, which keeps this from 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this to go directly to a screen, and get URIs from list_app_deeplinks. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no tie-breaking against open_deep_link, resolve_deeplink, launch_app, or start_app, which an agent would need given how many near-duplicate navigation siblings exist.

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