start_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Start an application') and return type, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., app foregrounding), error conditions, or platform-specific constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. Every element serves a clear function with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return type, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks behavioral details needed for safe use, leaving gaps in understanding side effects or errors.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'package_name (str): Package name of the application to start'. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type and title, though schema description coverage is 0%. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately compensates.

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 verb ('Start') and resource ('an application'), specifying it's done 'by package name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_app' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools. The purpose is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'execute_script' for app launching. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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