agent-droid-bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the action but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires device interaction permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, error handling for invalid coordinates, or side effects on the UI state.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and directly lists the key parameters without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a device interaction tool with no annotations, it lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, and behavioral expectations that would help an agent use it correctly in practice.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters define a swipe gesture from start to end points over time, which is already evident from parameter names and schema descriptions.

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 action ('swipe gesture') and target ('Android screen'), specifying coordinates and duration. It distinguishes from siblings like tap_screen or press_key by describing a swipe motion, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar gesture tools that might exist.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity), appropriate contexts, or comparisons to other interaction tools like tap_screen or execute_adb_command.

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