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 describes the output format but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects such as whether this operation requires specific device states, if it's read-only or has side effects, potential performance impacts, or error handling. The description is purely output-focused without operational context.

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 that directly states the tool's output without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 that there's an output schema (which presumably describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and potential device interaction complexity, the description is minimal—it covers the output but lacks context about when and how to use it effectively with sibling tools.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema handles all 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 clearly states what the tool does ('A PNG screenshot of the current Android device screen') with specific details about the output format (PNG, width, height, base64-encoded image data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'snapshot_ui' by focusing on raw screen capture rather than UI analysis, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 'snapshot_ui' or 'detect_ui_change'. The input schema includes detailed instructions about device selection, but the description itself lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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