List Devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the output fields (serial and state) and the adb source, but it does not say whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether it might start the adb server, require device authorization, or what state values mean. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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?

The description is extremely compact and front-loaded, using a single sentence to state the output source and content. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical adds the two most useful data fields without padding.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema, the description provides the core operational facts: no inputs needed, returns adb-visible device serials and states. It doesn't clarify when to use it instead of nearby device tools, but that gap is already captured under usage guidelines, and the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The empty schema already communicates that no arguments are needed, and the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 title already communicates the verb and resource, and the description adds useful specificity: it returns devices visible to adb, including serial and state. It is not tautological, and while it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling device tools like get_device_status or connect_device, the 'adb can see' qualifier makes the scope reasonably clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use list_devices versus alternatives such as get_device_status, connect_device, or ping_device. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to more appropriate sibling tools, so the agent must infer selection from names alone.

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