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, yet it discloses nothing beyond "force-stop": not whether unsaved state is discarded, whether the app is removed from recents, whether an error is raised for a non-running package, or whether special permissions are needed. The "force" wording hints at an abrupt kill, but that is the only signal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal concision for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 not be described, but the definition still leaves too much unsaid for a destructive-feeling operation: the package format, failure behavior, and effect on running state are all absent.

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, and it does not. The single required parameter `package` is never explained – an agent gets no hint that it expects a package identifier such as com.example.app rather than an app display name.

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?

"Force-stop an app" pairs a specific verb (force-stop, not merely stop) with a clear resource (app), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like app_launch or app_current, leaving the agent to infer that this is the inverse of launching.

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 app_launch or a graceful stop, no preconditions (must the app be running?), and no stated consequences. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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