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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that spaces are encoded automatically (a key implementation detail) and the input schema provides extensive device_serial handling instructions. However, it doesn't mention error conditions beyond the multi-device case or performance characteristics.

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 sentences with zero waste - the first states core functionality, the second adds crucial behavioral detail about space encoding. Every word earns its place and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers the core functionality, adds behavioral details, and the schema handles parameter documentation thoroughly. No significant gaps remain for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'text' parameter's purpose ('into the focused input field') and the schema provides rich semantics for device_serial including multi-device error handling. This exceeds baseline but doesn't fully explain all parameter interactions.

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 specific action ('Text input') and target ('currently focused Android input field'), distinguishing it from siblings like tap_screen or press_key. It precisely defines the verb+resource combination without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context (when an Android input field is focused) but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like press_key for special keys or tap_screen for navigation. It provides clear operational context but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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