launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait (a game only accepts input from the controller that launched it, so launching here is required to control it). It omits error behavior for uninstalled/running titles and how launch blocks or returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and id format, and the second paragraph earns its place by explaining a non-obvious control-routing constraint. Wording is slightly convoluted ('ignores this pad ... ignores theirs') but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description should do more: the unexplained snapshot_after_ms and the absence of any failure modes leave gaps. Its coverage of the discovery workflow and input-routing behavior is solid but partial for a 2-parameter act-on-device 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a useful id format example for title_id, but snapshot_after_ms — an opaque parameter with a 5000ms default — is never mentioned or explained in either place.

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 (launch) and resource (an installed title by id), with a concrete id example (PPSA01325). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like close_app, install, and list_apps, which it explicitly routes the agent to.

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?

Gives clear context: call list_apps() to discover installed titles, and explains the condition that selects this tool over the user's own controller (input routing follows the launching controller). It lacks an explicit when-not clause, e.g. what happens if the title is already running.

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