shared_preferences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that writes stop the app, preserve ownership/mode, back up the old XML, check its hash, and leave the app stopped. It does not cover permission/root requirements or error behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core operation and write side effects stated immediately. There is minor redundancy between 'Writes stop the app' and 'leaves app stopped,' and the values notation is terse but efficient.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It explains the core behavior and values shape, but leaves most parameters and operational prerequisites undocumented; the output schema does cover return values.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description only explains the values format and implies the action. Required parameters like package and file, plus keys, storage, user_id, and stop_app, receive no semantic explanation beyond their titles.

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 states specific operations (read/set/delete) on a specific resource (typed private XML preferences) and lists supported value types. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as inspect_app_data, sqlite_database, or system_settings.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and operations: use this for private XML shared preferences. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to adjacent tools that also inspect or modify app data.

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