push_app

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions rendering and pushing, and re-activation behavior, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or whether the action is destructive. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides essential information without unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, 5 parameters, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but omits return values and error scenarios. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the installation_id re-activation use, but adds minimal value beyond the schema. The config parameter's behavior is already described in the schema.

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 the tool renders a server-side app and pushes it to the display, and also explains re-activation using installation_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like push_image or push_text.

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?

The description gives specific guidance on using installation_id alone for re-activation, and implies usage for new apps with app_id and config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other push tools or when not to use it.

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