phone_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds useful context: EXPERIMENTAL status, python3/pyobjc dependency, need for iPhone Mirroring to be frontmost, and handling of a paused connection. However, it omits success/failure behavior, side effects, and what 'clicks Resume' entails.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with EXPERIMENTAL, and each sentence carries prerequisite information. Slightly awkward phrasing ('and clicks Resume') blurs the actor but does not waste space.

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 zero-param launch tool the description is missing the central outcome—what gets launched and what the agent should expect after invocation. It compensates with environment prerequisites but not enough for full completeness given no annotations or output schema.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description need not explain inputs. Schema coverage is effectively 100% for an empty 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 enumerates dependencies and a Resume interaction but never states the core action in verb+resource terms; an agent must infer from the name that it launches iPhone Mirroring. It does not distinguish phone_launch from siblings such as phone_open or phone_status.

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?

It gives prerequisites (iPhone Mirroring running/frontmost) but no when-to-use condition relative to phone_open, phone_status, or other phone tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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