agentest_get_shared_prefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It states the tool is a read operation and requires a debuggable build, but lacks details about error handling (e.g., file not found) or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler, clearly stating the action, purpose, and a critical requirement.

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 two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and a key prerequisite. However, it does not specify return value format or behavior in edge cases, which would improve completeness.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds contextual examples (e.g., '.xml' suffix) but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

The description clearly identifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'SharedPreferences XML file', with a stated purpose 'verify stored state'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'agentest_query_db' (database) and 'agentest_device_info' (device info), but could be more explicit.

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 mentions when to use it ('verify stored state') and a prerequisite ('Requires a debuggable build'), but does not indicate when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'agentest_get_logs' or 'agentest_query_db'.

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