as_adb_input

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint false and readOnlyHint false, but the description adds little beyond stating the action. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., interfering with app state), whether the command blocks until completion, or if it requires focus on the target app. The return value is mentioned but not detailed.

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 concise with three short sections: purpose, arguments, and returns. It uses clear formatting and avoids redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given the presence of a detailed schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input types, and return format. It is complete enough for a tool with a single parameter object, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or serial selection logic, which are partly in the schema.

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 description includes an Args section listing the three fields (kind, value, serial) with brief explanations, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should compensate more. Since the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, the description's contribution is minimal but acceptable, earning a baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool sends tap/swipe/text/keyevent to the device for UI automation. The verb 'Send' and list of input types provide a specific purpose, and the tool name 'as_adb_input' differentiates it from sibling tools like 'as_adb_shell' or 'as_ui_send_keys', as it focuses on ADB input simulation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'as_ui_send_keys' or 'as_adb_shell'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., device must be awake) or circumstances where it is inappropriate (e.g., for background UI elements). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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