adb_stop_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral implications. It only states the action ('force-stop') and the device auto-selection rule. It fails to mention side effects like data loss, app state reset, or that force-stop is more aggressive than a normal stop. It also doesn't explain error behavior (e.g., if app not running or multiple devices connected).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. It front-loads the core action and uses minimal words. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff.

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 force-stop tool, the description covers the main behavior and parameters. However, it omits important context like side effects, error conditions, and what happens with multiple devices when 'device' is not specified. Since there is no annotation coverage, these gaps reduce completeness. The presence of an output schema might cover return values, but we don't see its content.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args section compensates well. It explains the 'package' parameter with an example and clarifies the 'device' parameter's behavior when omitted (auto-selects when only one device). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Force-stop an app on the Android device.' It uses a specific verb ('force-stop') and resource ('app'), making it distinct from sibling adb tools like adb_launch_app or adb_install. No ambiguity remains about what action this tool performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for terminating a running app, nor does it contrast with adb_launch_app or adb_install. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device connected) or exclusions (e.g., not for stopping system apps).

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