stop_adb_app

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-read-only, and open-world, so the baseline is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly notes the call succeeds whether or not the package had running processes, and frames the operation as device-mutating and tied to ending a dynamic-analysis run.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core operation and the success-semantics caveat are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 destructive device-mutation tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does, that it mutates device state, and how it behaves when no process is running. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear per-parameter descriptions for `serial`, `package`, and `analysis_project_id`. The description only restates that the operation targets one package and does not add format, provenance, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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-stop every process of one package using `am force-stop`. It clearly distinguishes this from app-starting or package-uninstalling siblings, and the scope ('every process of one package') removes ambiguity.

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 phrase 'ending a dynamic-analysis run' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as `uninstall_adb_package`, `start_adb_app`, or `list_adb_processes`. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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