cyd_launch

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the schema: launching a MicroPython app is queued, so success means it will start, not that it has. This is valuable async/queuing context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so reasonably well, though it could also mention side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentences with no waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the queuing caveat is placed at the end where it belongs. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the resource types, the action, and the async caveat. It could be more complete by clarifying how to discover valid app_id values (e.g., via cyd_apps_list or cyd_installed_apps_list), but the core calling context is sufficient.

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 explains that app_id identifies a built-in view, native app, or installed MicroPython app, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the format of app_id (e.g., whether it is a name, numeric id, or path), so the compensation is partial.

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 verb ('Open') and resource ('a built-in view, a native app, or an installed MicroPython app by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from many siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from tools like cyd_activate or cyd_run.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to open a built-in view, native app, or installed MicroPython app by id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like cyd_activate or cyd_run, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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