flipper_app_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Launch an app' and that args is optional, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (like connection state), return behavior, or what happens if the app doesn't exist. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and examples, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns). However, it lacks context about device connection requirements, error handling, and the effect on the currently running app. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally viable but not fully complete without annotations.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'name' can be an app name or full .fap path, and 'args' is optional and can be a file to open. This compensates for the schema gap, though it could further clarify the expected format of 'name' or the exact behavior of 'args'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Launch' and identifies the resource as an app, with clear examples ('Sub-GHz', 'NFC', 'Storage') and optional full .fap path. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like flipper_app_exit (exit app) and flipper_list_apps (list apps), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: to launch an app by name or file path. It gives contextual examples for the 'name' and 'args' parameters, implying the common use case. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use flipper_app_exit to close an app'), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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