stop_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Force-stops' hints at a mutating, potentially destructive operation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, side effects such as process termination or data clearing, or how the built-in verification works.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose purpose is straightforward.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple verification parameters, the description is too thin. It omits usage context, side effects, and verification behavior that an agent would need to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the required 'package' parameter ('by package name'), but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already conveys, and it ignores the verify-related parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Force-stops an app') and scopes it by package name. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like launch_app or get_screen_state, so it falls short of the explicit sibling-routing seen in top-scoring definitions.

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 does not mention when a forced stop is appropriate, when a graceful stop would be preferred, or what prerequisites exist before calling it.

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