app_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'start an activity'. It does not disclose side effects (launching UI on the device), permission/adb requirements, what happens on an unresolvable intent, or what the response looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb, mechanism, and key qualifier; no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 6-param tool with a nested extras object.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested `extras` object, no annotations, and no output schema, a single line is insufficient. An agent gets no return-value expectation, no failure semantics, and no note on how `extras` should be shaped beyond the one-word schema hint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (data, mime, action, extras, package, component) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start an activity') and identifies the underlying mechanism (`am start`), plus the key qualifier 'arbitrary intent'. It stops short of distinguishing from the sibling `app_launch`, so an agent must infer which to choose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like `app_launch` or `device_shell`. 'Arbitrary intent' weakly implies an advanced/low-level path but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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