stop_app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating 'Force-stop'. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., effect on app state, termination of all processes), but the safety profile is adequately disclosed by the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, target, and required identifier efficiently.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description plus annotations is adequate. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, but the straightforward nature of force-stopping an app and the presence of destructive annotation make the tool's behavior reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with device_serial documented but package_name not. The description adds meaning to package_name by identifying it as a package name (rather than an app label), which helps distinguish the expected format. device_serial's semantics are fully covered in the schema, so overall parameter understanding is solid.

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 ('Force-stop') and a clear resource ('Android application') with the scope ('by package name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like launch_app, uninstall_app, and install_apk, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for terminating an app without mentioning alternatives or exclusions. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over uninstall_app or other app-control tools, but the name and wording make the core use case evident.

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