run_verified_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it lists steps ('stop apps, write state, start AlgorithmAide, sync LSPosed'), it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether app state is modified, if prior data is overwritten), required permissions (root?), or the impact of running multiple times. The description also omits any indication of return values or errors.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates steps. It is concise but dense with jargon (AlgorithmAide, LSPosed) and lacks structure (e.g., bullet points). It could be more readable without sacrificing brevity.

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's complexity (12 parameters, multi-step workflow, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'write state' entails, what AlgorithmAide or LSPosed are, how the workflow is verified, or what the returned output is. Important context like prerequisites, error handling, and log collection options are entirely missing.

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?

The input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameters like configJson, configPatch, hookSpec, fridaScript, trigger, etc., are completely opaque. The only hint is 'targetPackage' is required, but its purpose is not clarified. Without any parameter semantics, an AI agent cannot correctly populate these fields.

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 runs a 'minimal verified loop' and enumerates the steps: stop apps, write state, start AlgorithmAide, sync LSPosed, then optionally launch the target. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('verified loop'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync_lsposed_scope or collect_runtime_logs that focus on individual steps. However, the term 'verified loop' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be more explicit about the overall goal.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or differentiate from running the individual steps separately. Given the large number of sibling tools that handle specific aspects (e.g., sync_lsposed_scope, inject_frida_script), the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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