iphone_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavior: this is a pure read ('查看') with no side effects, and it enumerates the exact data points returned. It does not describe the response format or any latency/failure modes (e.g. what happens if WDA is not connected), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose front-loaded and the return fields listed after a colon. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 document the return values itself, and it does so by naming all four status fields. What is missing is the shape/format of the response and how an unready or locked device is reported, which an agent would need to act on 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('查看连接状态' – view connection status) and enumerates exactly what status is reported: WDA readiness, lock state, foreground app, and screen size. This clearly distinguishes it from the action siblings (iphone_tap, iphone_swipe, iphone_screenshot) without needing to name them, though it does not explicitly call out that differentiation.

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?

No explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, but the content makes the intended use obvious: it is the pre-flight/health-check tool an agent calls before driving the device. Usage is implied rather than stated, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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