Open deep link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without conveying side effects, such as launching an app, requiring an installed app, or what happens for invalid URLs. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core function, making it appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic action. It omits important context such as return value behavior (partially covered by observe but not explained in description), prerequisites like having the app installed, and when to prefer this tool over launch_app. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 67%, with device_id and observe having descriptions, but url lacks one. The description's mention of 'deep link / universal link URL' marginally clarifies the url parameter's purpose, but it does not add meaningful information beyond the schema. The observe parameter's options are already well-documented, so the description adds limited value.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a deep link / universal link URL on the device.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like launch_app (which opens an app) and tap/input_text (which interact with UI), making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like launch_app or input_text. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The only implication is through the tool's name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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