state.prefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait, that root access is required, but omits read-only vs mutating semantics, permission failures, and what parsing yields or how errors surface.

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?

A single compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is only held back from a 5 by being so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than crisp completeness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of context and is inadequate for a two-required-parameter tool. An agent cannot confidently supply pkg/file formats or predict the return shape from this text alone.

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?

Both required parameters (pkg, file) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description only vaguely implies pkg is the app package and file is the shared_prefs XML. It adds almost no usable syntax, format, or example detail to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'root 读应用 shared_prefs XML 并解析' (reads an app's shared_prefs XML and parses it). This is far more concrete than a tautology, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling state.db or explain the relationship between reading and parsing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only implicit signal is the leading 'root', hinting at an elevated-privilege context, but no conditions or alternatives (e.g. state.db) are named.

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