push_file

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation overwrites existing files, requires permissions, or has side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it does not meet.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple file transfer tool, the description and schema provide the essential context: the action and the key parameters. No output schema is present, so return values are not needed. Additional context like error handling or device selection edge cases is not required for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema covers 2 out of 3 parameters with descriptions (serial and remote_path), leaving local_path without a description. The description adds no further detail beyond the schema, and the parameter names provide adequate semantic clues. Medium coverage, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: copying a local file to the device. It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from pull_file, which performs the reverse operation.

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 usage is implied by the description and tool name, but no explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like pull_file or adb_shell. There is no mention of alternative tools or conditions.

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