unroot_adb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says adbd restarts. It omits the consequences of that restart (daemon teardown, transient disconnection, loss of root-only capability for subsequent calls) and whether the device must already be rooted. Nothing is disclosed beyond the one-line summary.

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 sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place and the CLI equivalent is a compact, useful anchor.

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-value explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple one-step operation. However, with no annotations and an undocumented `serial` parameter, the definition does not tell the agent about the restart's side effects or how to target a specific device, leaving real gaps for an operation that changes device state.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `serial` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (targeting one of several connected devices) must be guessed. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource (restart adbd) and pins it to the exact CLI equivalent (`adb unroot`), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling `root_adb` or state the inverse relationship, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for dropping root, and the parenthetical `adb unroot` hints at the counterpart of `root_adb`. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. device must currently be rooted), and no named alternative.

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