root_adb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses the root-requirement constraint and a fallback path. It stops short of describing security implications, persistence, or what happens on an already-rooted device, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The main action and the critical compatibility constraint are front-loaded, and the alternative follows immediately.

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 description covers the action, constraints, and fallback, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented `serial` parameter, which is minor for this root-escalation tool but still a gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the sole parameter `serial` is not mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on what `serial` selects or when to omit it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: restart adbd as root, and names the underlying `adb root` command. It also distinguishes the operation's scope by noting it only works on rooted/userdebug builds, making it easy to separate from siblings like unroot_adb.

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 gives explicit when-it-works guidance ('Only works on rooted/userdebug builds') and an alternative for production builds ('use su via read_file(as_root=True) etc. instead'). This directly routes the agent to the correct tool or fallback without inference.

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