launch

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that the app becomes visible/foregrounded ("puis la voir"), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure modes when the app name doesn't resolve or whether launching an already-running app is a no-op.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by accepted input formats. No filler. The trailing "puis la voir" is slightly vague but costs almost nothing.

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, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things that matter: what the tool does and how to format the only argument. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% — the single `app` parameter has no description in the schema — so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it explains both accepted forms (full package name or a fragment) with concrete examples. This meaningfully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource in plain terms: open an application, and it specifies the accepted identifier forms with concrete examples (com.whatsapp, "whatsapp", "maps"). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like act or look, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the argument guidance — you call it with a package name or a partial name to bring an app forward. There is no statement of when to prefer this over act/look/checkup, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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