app_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does a good job explaining the returned state values (front, covered, other, unknown) and the covered case, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the package is not installed, or that restart force-stops (that lives only in the schema).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, then the return semantics. Every sentence earns its place; only minor trimming would improve it.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description usefully documents the return shape and state enum. However, for an app-launching action with no annotations, it omits failure behavior, permission requirements, and the effect of restart beyond the schema note, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, including examples for package and the restart/activity semantics, so the schema already carries the parameter detail. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond it, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Bring an app to the foreground.' That is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like app_stop or app_intent, though the description never names those siblings or explains the difference explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of app_intent, drive_open, calendar_open, or app_stop. The usage is only implied by the verb 'bring to foreground', leaving the agent to infer routing between launch-style siblings.

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