force_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: idempotency and the return shape {package, status}. It omits required permissions, whether the app's data/state is affected, and whether it applies to all device users.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. Every element (action, idempotency, return shape) adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration. For a 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'serial' parameter and absent permission/effect details leave real gaps.

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 0% for two parameters. The description mentions only 'an app', leaving the 'serial' device-selection parameter entirely unexplained and adding no format or constraint detail for 'package' beyond the schema's type declaration.

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+resource ('Force-stop an app'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like kill_background or clear_app_data, which an agent could plausibly confuse with force-stopping.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as kill_background or clear_app_data, nor any stated prerequisites. The parenthetical '(idempotent)' implies safe retry but not selection criteria.

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