agent-droid-bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior regarding device selection, error handling, and session persistence for the 'device_serial' parameter, though it doesn't cover aspects like permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. The detailed usage guidelines are efficiently integrated into the parameter descriptions in the schema, avoiding redundancy and maintaining clarity.

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 tool's complexity (device management, error handling) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers key behavioral aspects but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or Android-specific constraints.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, such as implying the tool's focus on Android apps, but doesn't provide additional parameter insights beyond what's in the structured data.

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's purpose as launching an Android app using a component name, specifying the format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'press_key' or 'tap_screen' by focusing on app launching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 includes explicit usage guidance by specifying when to omit the 'device_serial' parameter ('only when a single device is connected') and provides detailed error-handling instructions for multi-device scenarios, including a hard requirement to stop and present options to the user.

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