list_shared_preferences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that root or a debuggable app is required and that the target is the app sandbox, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe the output format, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with a small schema, the description covers the primary scope (all SharedPreferences files in the sandbox) and a critical prerequisite. It does not explain the return format or mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if none exist), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly 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 helpful descriptions for both serial and packageName (100% coverage). The description adds only the context of 'application sandbox,' which slightly reinforces packageName's purpose but does not materially extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'List all' and the resource 'SharedPreferences (preferences XML files) inside an application sandbox.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_shared_preferences, which likely reads content rather than listing files.

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 description implies usage: use this tool to enumerate SharedPreferences XML files for a given package. It mentions a prerequisite (debuggable app or root) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_shared_preferences or list_packages, offering no 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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