inspect_app_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral traits of Root dependency and the exact path scope (/data/data/<package>/), and '读取或查询' implies read-only. However, it says nothing about what happens on non-rooted devices, permission requirements, or the risk/behavior of the sql_query mode (whether writes are possible, statement restrictions).

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?

Three short lines with the core capability (root-level private data inspection) front-loaded before the supporting detail. The bracketed label and exclamation marks are mild marketing padding but do not obscure the meaning.

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 5-parameter tool with one required param, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to select and invoke it: what data is reachable, that it requires Root, and that no UI launch is needed. Missing only failure-mode guidance for non-root scenarios.

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 100% and the schema already documents mode, package, pref_key, sql_query, and target_file in detail. The description only names the data sources (SharedPreferences, SQLite) without adding format or interaction constraints beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (read/query) and a precise resource: SharedPreferences XML and SQLite databases under /data/data/<package>/, accessed via Root without opening the UI. An agent can tell this is a root-level private-data inspector. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the shared_preferences and sqlite_database siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 — verifying toggle states, cached data, and internal table records without launching the app — but never states when to prefer this over shared_preferences or sqlite_database, nor any exclusions such as non-rooted devices. Usage context is implied rather than prescribed.

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