stop_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't describe what 'stop' entails (e.g., force-quit, background suspension, user confirmation), potential side effects (e.g., data loss if unsaved), permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., if app isn't running). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a simple input schema (1 parameter) and an output schema (returns a string message), the description covers the basics adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, and usage context, which are important for safe and effective invocation.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'package_name' by specifying it's for 'the application to stop', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's generic 'Package Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter represents, though it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., 'com.example.app').

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 specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('an application by package name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_app' (which starts applications) and 'clear_app_data' (which clears data rather than stopping). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the app must be running), exclusions (e.g., system apps might not be stoppable), or related tools like 'start_app' for starting apps or 'stop_all_scripts' for broader stopping operations. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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