terminate_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Force-stop' implies immediate termination, but it does not mention potential data loss, whether the action is reversible, or any required permissions. The description lacks the detail expected for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple tool and front-loads the core action immediately.

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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what value to pass for the required 'package' parameter, nor does it explain the consequences of force-stopping (e.g., losing unsaved state). An agent would need additional context to call this 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 coverage is 50%: only 'serial' has a description, while 'package' (required) is undocumented. The description 'a running app' only vaguely implies that package identifies the app, adding no format, constraints, or examples. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Force-stop a running app' clearly identifies the action (force-stop) and the resource (a running app). It is distinct from sibling tools like launch_app, clear_app_data, or uninstall_app, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb is specific enough to differentiate, but lacks the explicit sibling differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where launch_app or uninstall_app would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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