Resolve Deeplink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the return categories via handler_kind, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, whether it opens anything, what permissions are required, or any other behavioral trait beyond the output classification.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core question, and the handler_kind line is compact and informative. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly better structured as a declarative statement rather than a bare question.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the required parameter's possible value types but omits the device parameter, usage context, and any behavioral safety information; the output schema handles return values, but the remaining gaps are significant.

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. It adds meaning for the required uri parameter by noting it can be an intent action like android.settings.WIFI_SETTINGS, but it never mentions the optional device parameter or how it affects resolution.

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 states a specific query: which app would open a URI or intent action, and it names the result categories (app, browser_only, none). This distinguishes it implicitly from sibling tools like open_deeplink or open_deep_link, but it never explicitly names those alternatives, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_deeplink or list_app_deeplinks. The phrasing implies it is for resolving rather than opening, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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