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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: result ordering (newest-active first), the meaning of `active: true` as the default resolution target for other tools, the WebView-only nature of `visible` (null on ordinary browser tabs), and the caveat that stale tabs accumulate across sessions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then dense, non-redundant guidance about active vs visible and the close_page follow-up. Every sentence carries unique, actionable information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does (id, type, title, url, active, visible, ordering). Combined with the active/visible semantics and stale-tab caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% for both parameters (udid, socket) with their own descriptions, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves (pageId is referenced only as a parameter of other tools), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (debuggable pages/targets on the device) and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly separable from android_devtools_close_page and the many android_devtools_* action 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to call it for a lookup purpose: 'you do NOT need to list tabs and pass an id just to act on the current tab, only to act on a DIFFERENT one.' It also names the follow-up tool (android_devtools_close_page) for cleaning up stale tabs, giving both context and an alternative.

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