List ADB Connected Devices

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context by listing the returned fields (device IDs, status, connection type, model, screen dimensions) and defining statuses and connection types. It also documents error handling, stating that an empty array is returned if ADB is not installed/accessible or no devices are connected. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear section headers for Device Status, Connection Types, Examples, and Error Handling, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat repetitive — the opening and second sentence both state the 'list all connected devices' concept — but each bulleted section earns its place by providing useful interpretation and error context.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needs to explain output semantics and error behavior. It does this thoroughly, including what fields are returned, what statuses mean, and what happens when ADB is unavailable. A brief pointer to adb_connect for connection scenarios would make it fully complete, but the current description provides enough context for correct 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies that the tool operates without any required inputs and focuses on querying ADB output. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Android devices connected via ADB (Android Debug Bridge).' It clearly distinguishes this enumeration tool from siblings like adb_connect, which is about establishing a connection. The additional details about statuses and connection types reinforce the tool's specific scope.

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 'Examples' section provides explicit 'Use when' scenarios, such as checking connected devices, getting device IDs, and verifying ADB connection. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, especially given the sibling adb_connect exists. This is clear context but lacks formal exclusions.

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