Android launch App

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value by disclosing the force-stop-on-relaunch behavior and the monkey-command mechanism, and by documenting that ambiguous name fragments produce a candidate list rather than a guess. No contradiction with annotations — destructiveHint aligns with the optional force-stop. Full burden is met.

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?

Well front-loaded with core purpose and mechanism, followed by parameter rules and sibling routing. The stable-package list at the end is useful reference material rather than padding. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

Complete for a launch tool given strong schema and annotations. The description covers mutual exclusion, resolution ambiguity (candidate list), which sibling to use when, and fallback strategy for unknown packages. The only minor gap is no explicit return-value description, but with no output schema and a simple launch action, this is a small omission.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is well documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: the case-insensitive fragment resolution rule, the candidate-list fallback behavior, and the first-party stable package-name list that lets an agent skip android_list_apps for common packages.

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 ('Launch an already-installed app by resolving its LAUNCHER activity') and distinguishes itself from android_build_run (build/install) and android_list_apps (listing). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not for.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use this to OPEN an app; android_build_run is for building and installing one from source' and instructs 'run android_list_apps first when unsure' for unstable third-party package names. The EITHER/OR parameter rule is also spelled out ('Pass EITHER packageName OR name').

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