atv_launch_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Launch an app' which implies a side effect, but it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., if the app is not installed), whether it waits for launch, what the response contains, or if any device-specific behaviors apply. The description provides no behavioral detail beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and provides a useful list of examples. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two parameters (one required, one optional with a default), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described in the text. The description fails to explain the 'device' parameter, error conditions, or any operational context (e.g., whether the device must be powered on). Relying on the output schema for return values is acceptable given it exists, but the absence of parameter guidance and exception handling makes this incomplete for a launch operation.

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 description adds meaning to the 'app' parameter by specifying it can be a friendly name or bundle identifier, which is helpful since schema coverage is 0%. However, it entirely ignores the 'device' parameter, leaving its purpose and default behavior undocumented. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not completely.

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 the resource 'app', with explicit examples of friendly names and mention of bundle identifiers. It is specific about what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like atv_list_apps or atv_play, which could be ambiguous in some contexts.

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 such as atv_open_url or atv_play. The description only explains what the tool does, not the conditions that would make it the right choice (e.g., 'Use this to launch a specific app by its friendly name'). It neither states exclusions nor mentions prerequisites.

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