inspect_adb_display

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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only; setting values is not exposed,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about a core behavioral trait. The annotations also mark openWorldHint=true while the description implies a constrained device-local read, but the read-only contradiction alone is decisive.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads what the tool reports, and ends with a relevant read-only boundary. Every sentence contributes without redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 simple two-parameter inspection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description communicates the core result: physical and overridden size and density. It does not describe output formatting, units, or multi-display behavior, but it is largely complete for the tool's scope.

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 100%, so both parameters (serial and analysis_project_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reports the display's physical and overridden size and density as declared by the device. This is clear without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as inspect_adb_window or read_adb_setting, so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.

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 sentence 'Read-only; setting values is not exposed' gives an implied usage boundary: use this for reading, not changing display settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or name any alternative tools, leaving usage guidance at a minimum viable level.

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