shake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only works on emulators and that it simulates accelerometer motion, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens on failure, whether a booted emulator is required, or what the tool returns.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with the key constraint front-loaded. Every part adds value: the action, the emulator-only restriction, the simulated behavior, and a concrete example.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description plus schema fully cover the essential context. An agent knows what the tool does, where it can be used, why it would be used, and how the serial parameter behaves.

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% and the only parameter, serial, is already well described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Shake the device') and immediately clarifies the platform constraint and intended effect ('emulator only — simulates accelerometer motion'). It also gives a concrete use case (React Native dev menu), which disambiguates it from sibling input tools like swipe or tap.

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 explicitly states when the tool applies ('emulator only') and gives an example trigger ('e.g. to open the React Native dev menu'). It effectively tells an agent not to use this on physical devices, and no alternative sibling is relevant for a shake gesture.

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