iphone_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add real value by disclosing the four pieces of state returned, which matters for deciding whether the device is usable. It does not say whether the call is side-effect free, what happens when WDA is unavailable (error vs. degraded result), or how costly/latent the probe is.

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?

A single sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the returned fields listed after the colon. Every element earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the enumerated fields effectively substitute for a return-value description, which is the main thing an agent needs. Only the failure mode when WDA is not ready is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless status probe, and no parameter detail is missing.

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 concrete verb+resource ('查看连接状态') and enumerates exactly what is reported: WDA readiness, lock state, foreground app, and screen size. This clearly separates it from the action siblings (tap, swipe, launch_app, screenshot), though it never explicitly labels itself as the read-only inspection tool among them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check before tapping or typing, but the description never says when to call it, that it should precede other iphone_* actions, or what to do if WDA is not ready. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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