App Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and '写操作' is the only disclosure. It does not say whether the stop is graceful or forced, what happens to dependent services or tasks, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible — all relevant for a mutation on an app.

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 short sentence with zero padding and the write-operation qualifier up front. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than well-chosen restraint.

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 and five parameters, the description omits preconditions, side effects, and failure behavior. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value detail, but not the missing operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including how app_name relates to app_list; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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: stopping an application, and flags that it is a write operation. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as app_restart and app_uninstall, which an agent must choose between by name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no indication of when to stop rather than restart or uninstall an app, no prerequisites (e.g., app must be running), and no mention of related lifecycle tools.

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