Install App

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say the device must be booted, whether it overwrites an existing install, how long the operation takes, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single clause with no filler, and the verb+resource lead makes it front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately minimal.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema) and the schema plus annotations cover safety and parameter details, so an agent can invoke it. Still, the description omits any mention of device readiness or platform-specific install behavior that a caller would want before running it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including per-platform file formats for 'path' and the device-listing hint for 'device'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 (Install) and resource (app on mobile device), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like mobile_uninstall_app and mobile_launch_app. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as mobile_launch_app or mobile_uninstall_app, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., device must be running/allocated). The only useful routing hint, listing available devices, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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