Stop App [Pro]

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

The description clearly states the behavior: 'immediately terminates the app process.' This goes beyond the input schema to explain the effect (brutal vs graceful stop). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It could mention that the app might crash or lose unsaved data, but it already signals destructiveHint=false implicitly.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The critical info (force-stop, package name, effect) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and use case. It could mention return value (vs output) or side effects in more detail, but for a straightforward force-stop, it is sufficient.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds no extra detail about 'device_id' or 'package_name' beyond the schema. Since both are self-explanatory and schema covers them, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('force-stop'), resource ('running application'), and scope ('by its package name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'launch_app' or 'close_app' by being explicit about force-stopping; although 'stop_test_recording' is different, the description clearly targets app process termination, which differentiates it from other device control tools.

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 gives a use case ('resetting app state or freeing resources'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools (e.g., 'close_app' or 'uninstall_app'). No explicit guidance on prerequisites like device ownership or permissions.

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