appium_mobile_device_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cross-platform applicability and that all three data points come back in one call, but says nothing about session fallback behavior or whether failures raise or return partial data. With annotations present, a 3 fits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool retrieves and then how to select it. No filler; the platform note earns its place as scoping information.

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, yet the description does not characterize return shape beyond the action labels, and the schema's own descriptions carry most of that burden. For a simple read-only tool this is close to adequate, but it does not fully cover what an agent gets back.

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%, and the schema itself spells out the action enum, the moment.js format string, the sessionId default, and the verbosity modes. The description only restates that 'action' selects the data, adding nothing beyond structured fields, 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?

The description names a concrete verb plus three specific resources (device info, battery status, device time), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns without opening the schema. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like appium_orientation or appium_geolocation, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

It tells the agent to use the 'action' parameter to pick which datum to fetch and that it works on iOS and Android, which is useful routing context. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., vs appium_session_health for status, or appium_observe for broader state).

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