launcher_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds a little by enumerating the reported facts (version, default-home status, active rules), but says nothing about output shape or whether the call touches the device.

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 only one short line with no padding, but it is telegraphic to the point of ambiguity — 'whether it's the home screen' is a dangling clause whose subject is unclear. Brevity here costs comprehension rather than buying it.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the bar is low, and the description does list the categories of information returned. However, without an output schema the agent would benefit from clearer statement of what the response contains, and the current phrasing is ambiguous about what 'home screen' status means.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('adb serial, only needed when several phones are connected'). The description adds no further meaning about device selection, so the baseline of 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 description names the resource (launcher) and three pieces of information it reports (version, whether it is the home screen, active rules), but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a status/read tool. It also gives no hint of how it differs from close siblings such as launcher_get_config, launcher_rules, or launcher_apps.

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, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a connected device. With seven sibling launcher_* tools available, the agent is left to guess which one answers 'what launcher state am I in'.

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