aua_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that it does not start a phone service — but says nothing about failure modes (no device attached, ADB not authorized) or what the inventory contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability and followed by the single most useful negative constraint. No filler, no restating of the title.

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, read-only diagnostic with full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient — an agent knows it is a safe local inspection call. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at what 'inventory and configuration' returns or how it behaves when no device is connected.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No syntax or scoping detail is needed or missing.

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 and resource: 'Read local ADB device inventory and configuration.' That distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (aua_tap, aua_launch_app, aua_screen_action) as a diagnostic/read tool, though it never names a sibling explicitly and 'aua_doctor' alone would be opaque without the sentence.

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 implied (run it to inspect device state/health) and one useful exclusion is given: 'Does not start a phone service,' which separates it from setup/ready/launch flows. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over aua_ready, aua_setup, or aua_observe, which are the closest alternatives.

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