list_adb_processes

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

The description asserts 'Read-only' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct contradiction of the structured safety signal. Beyond that, it adds no behavioral context such as permission requirements, performance cost, or whether the listing is a point-in-time snapshot.

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, with the core behavior and field list front-loaded. The trailing 'Read-only.' is minimal but is also the source of the annotation conflict, and 'pairing with instrumentation lanes' is vague filler.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a genuine plus, and the schema fully covers the two parameters. However, the description never reconciles its read-only claim with the annotations, and gives no indication that a device serial is required to scope the call.

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 `serial` and `analysis_project_id` are already documented, including the pattern and the caveat about not proving target identity. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List running processes') and anchors it with the `ps -A` equivalence, then enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_adb_devices and list_adb_packages by naming processes, though it doesn't call out the distinction explicitly.

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?

'Useful for pairing with instrumentation lanes' is a hint at context but not a real when-to-use rule. No exclusions, no prerequisites (e.g. device must be connected), and no named alternative for related queries.

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