Resolve App

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly annotation: exact matching after Unicode/whitespace normalization and rejection of ambiguous labels. This is valuable because it informs the agent about edge cases and failure behavior, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first clause front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds precise behavioral detail. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the input semantics and matching behavior well, but with no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns, an agent is left guessing whether the result is a package name, a label, or a structured object. It also does not state behavior on no match (only ambiguous labels), leaving a gap for correct post-processing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning by clarifying that packageName and appName are alternative lookup keys, and that matching follows strict normalization. It connects the parameters to the tool's core behavior, adding value beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('an app'), plus the accepted identifier forms ('package name' or 'app label'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mobile_launch_app or mobile_get_foreground_app, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any sibling tools or exclusions. It implies usage through the 'resolve' verb and matching semantics, but leaves the agent to infer context without clear guidance.

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