launcher_history

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read. The description's only added fact is that entries are configs 'pushed to this phone' (applied history rather than drafts or previews), which is modest value; it says nothing about ordering, retention, time range, or per-device filtering behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no filler, but it is an under-specified noun phrase rather than a complete statement, so brevity here reflects missing information rather than disciplined economy.

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 tool sitting in a large launcher/rollback family with no output schema, the description does not explain what each history entry contains, how far back it goes for a device, or how the result feeds launcher_rollback. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers the parameter, but the relationship to sibling tools remains unexplained.

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 100% and the single optional 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema as an adb serial only needed with multiple phones connected. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment identifies the resource (home-screen configs pushed to this phone), implying a history/log of applied launcher configs, but never uses a verb such as 'list' or 'return' and never states whether it is history rather than current state. An agent must infer the read/list purpose from the name alone, and it is only weakly distinguishable from siblings such as launcher_get_config and list_changes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before a rollback, to compare past pushes, or to look elsewhere (launcher_get_config, launcher_rollback, list_changes) for current state or undo operations. Usage must be guessed from the tool name.

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