launch-app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses devtools injection preparation, tvOS focus-driven interface, Chromium no-op behavior, return value format, and failure condition. All behaviors are transparently documented.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidance, platform specifics, and common IDs. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but effectively organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return value format (launched, bundleId) and covers error conditions, platform behaviors (iOS, Android, Chromium, tvOS, Vega), and provides common bundle IDs. It is thorough for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: for activity it explains default behavior and platform ignore logic; for bundleId it provides platform-specific examples and Chromium tag semantics. This adds meaningful context.

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 tool opens an app by bundle ID/package name or confirms a running Chromium renderer. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open-url and explicitly says it's preferred over tapping home-screen icons, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly suggests using this tool when starting any app and notes exceptions: for Chromium route changes use open-url, for tvOS use tv-* tools. It also says it fails if app is not installed, guiding proper usage.

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