kill_background

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 usefully discloses the underlying mechanism (`am kill`) and the gentleness relative to force-stop, implying only background processes are affected. It does not say what happens to a foreground process, what privileges are needed, or confirm the operation is non-destructive to app data.

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 front-loaded sentence with the mechanism and the differentiator packed in; nothing is wasted and the key routing cue comes last where it is easy to catch.

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 explanation. However, for a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the device-targeting `serial` parameter and any permission/foreground-app behavior unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters, and it does not. 'An app's' loosely implies the required package, but the `serial` parameter (device targeting) is never mentioned in either the schema or the description.

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 ('Kill an app's background processes') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling force_stop by calling itself 'gentler than force-stop.' An agent can pick between kill_background and force_stop without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (force-stop) and gives the condition that favors this tool (gentler behavior). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, e.g. that a foreground app or data-clearing need should route to force_stop or clear_app_data.

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