root_shell

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing that execution happens through `su -c` at uid=0, which tells the agent a rooted device is required. What it omits is the risk profile: arbitrary root execution is destructive and irreversible, yet there is no warning, no mention of failure when root is unavailable, and no note on blocking/timeout behavior beyond the schema.

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 capability statement comes first and the example command families follow, so it is front-loaded correctly. The '上帝模式直通车' framing is filler rather than information, but it costs only a few characters. Two short sentences for a two-parameter tool is proportionate.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameters are fully described, so the return-value burden is lifted. What is missing for a tool of this power level is the operational envelope: required root state, expected failure modes, and any caution about irreversible system mutation. Adequate, but thin for an unrestricted root shell.

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%, so both `command` and `timeout` are already fully documented in the schema, including the uid=0 execution context and the 20s default. The description adds no syntax, quoting, or multi-command guidance beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: execute arbitrary Root-privileged shell commands via `su -c`, and lists concrete command families (resetprop/setprop, kernel/mount inspection, /data/ access, firewall). An agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like `shell_execute`, `adb_command`, or `file_transfer_root`, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 enumerated examples imply the use case: operations that require uid=0. But there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for non-root commands, which matters because `shell_execute` and `adb_command` overlap heavily. Usage is implied, not prescribed.

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