get_shared_preferences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key requirement ('Requires a debuggable app or root') and clarifies the file location, but does not mention behavior for missing files or the exact output format (e.g., raw XML string vs. parsed structure). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the essential access prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with a well-described schema, the description covers the critical information: what is retrieved, where, and the access requirement. The phrase 'XML contents' gives a clear expectation of the return value, though explicitly stating the output format (e.g., raw XML) would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, including examples for filename and packageName. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve and read') and a specific resource ('XML contents of a specific Shared Preferences file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_shared_preferences and get_dbinfo. It also specifies the location scope ('inside an app's sandbox'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'a specific Shared Preferences file' implies the tool is for retrieving known file contents, and the prerequisite 'Requires a debuggable app or root' gives context for when it can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with list_shared_preferences (which likely lists files) is implicit.

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