Launch app

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, there is no disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether it brings the app to foreground, starts a new process, or fails silently if app is missing). The agent cannot assess behavior like error states or resource consumption.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the lack of structure or additional context reduces its effectiveness. It could include parameter hints or usage notes without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. Missing information about return behavior, error handling, and parameter formats makes it incomplete.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters (serial, package_name). The agent must infer their meaning from the property names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action (launch) and resource (APP on Android device), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_app_details or list_installed_apps. However, it's somewhat redundant with the tool name and lacks specificity about what 'launch' entails (e.g., starting the main activity).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed) or conditions for successful execution. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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