ACTION_GET_DEVICE_INFO

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the exact output field names and the fact that results are returned as a variable-snapshot JSON and that string parameters support ${var} interpolation. However, it says nothing about permissions, timing/cost of the call, or whether the snapshot persists across nodes.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the purpose before the output-field enumeration and the interpolation note. The long run of device_* field names is dense but functional; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating all returned device_* fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. Tool complexity is low and the schema covers the execution-control parameters, so only the missing when-to-use context keeps this from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters (require, on_error, node_timeout_ms) are already fully documented in the schema — baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the generic note that string parameters accept ${var} interpolation, which is a marginal addition rather than parameter-specific meaning.

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 and resource in '读取设备型号、Android 版本和屏幕尺寸', and the enumerated output fields (device_model, device_sdk, device_screen_width, etc.) further pin down the scope. This distinguishes it from the many other readers in the sibling list (ACTION_GET_APP_INFO, ACTION_GET_SCREEN_STATE, ACTION_GET_BATTERY), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives — no mention of prerequisites, no exclusion of overlapping tools like ACTION_GET_SCREEN_STATE or ACTION_GET_APP_INFO, and no guidance on whether it must precede other device-info calls. Usage must be inferred from the enum of returned fields.

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