remount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth requirement (root) and that the operation makes partitions writable. However, it omits whether the change is persistent until reboot, its risk profile, and any side effects on the running system.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite appended, no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the key auth requirement is stated. The main gap is the undocumented serial parameter and the absence of any note about selecting the target device.

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 single optional parameter "serial" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. An agent gets no explanation of how the device serial is used or what happens when it is omitted (default device?).

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 specific verb (remount) and resource (/system and other partitions) in read-write mode, and names the underlying adb command. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like root_adb or set_prop, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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?

"Needs root" states a prerequisite, implying usage after root_adb, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do instead (e.g., reboot to restore read-only).

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