start_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., what permissions are needed), error handling, or what happens upon successful launch. The output schema exists but the description does not explain return values or success/failure indications.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose line, requirement note, and argument list. It is not overly long, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the docstring format quirks.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but omits output behavior and error scenarios. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing return value explanation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'component: pkg/.ActivityName — pins the target component'). This enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Launch' and resource 'activity', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_service' or 'send_broadcast', which launch other Android components.

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 explicitly states that either 'component' or 'action' is required, providing clear usage guidance. It also advises when not to use this tool (for typed extras) and recommends an alternative ('use drozer_run_raw directly'), which is excellent for decision-making.

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