open_deep_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after opening (e.g., app state changes, navigation results). This is insufficient for a tool that can alter device state.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though its brevity may contribute to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with overlapping capabilities, the description is far too minimal. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call it correctly.

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 only 25% (only 'verify' has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on what 'url', 'deviceId', or 'platform' mean or how they should be formatted. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 action (open) and the target (deep link or URL) on the device. It is specific enough to convey the core function, though it does not mention how this differs from other device interaction tools among the siblings.

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 tap_on_element or device_type. The description gives no context on scenarios where deep links are appropriate or when other navigation tools should be preferred.

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