is_app_running

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 only states the core check without mentioning return type, case sensitivity, or behavior when the app is not running. The verb 'check' implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence for the purpose and one for the parameter. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits important context for an agent, such as matching behavior, differences from list_running_apps, and any prerequisites. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail makes it incomplete for decision-making.

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 for the undocumented parameter. The description merely restates 'Name of the application to check,' which adds minimal value beyond the property name and title. It lacks details on format, matching semantics, or 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks if an application is running, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_running_apps or get_frontmost_app.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for checking a specific app by name as opposed to listing all running apps, nor does it provide any context or exclusions.

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