recentApps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Open') but doesn't describe what happens after opening (e.g., does it return a list, require user interaction, or just trigger a system UI?). It also omits critical details like whether this requires specific device states (e.g., unlocked screen) or has side effects (e.g., interrupting current apps). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Open') and target ('recent apps list'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 apparent simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context about what 'opening' entails (e.g., UI interaction vs. data retrieval), expected outcomes, or device requirements. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral clarity to be complete for agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (enum: android/ios). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying platform relevance through the action. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 'Open the recent apps list' clearly states the action (open) and target (recent apps list), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listApps' (which likely lists installed apps) and 'homeScreen' (which navigates to home). However, it doesn't specify what 'recent apps' means in this context (e.g., system-level recent apps view vs. app-specific history), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be unlocked), exclusions (e.g., not available on certain platforms), or compare it to similar tools like 'homeScreen' or 'listApps'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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