backup_apps_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool invokes the standard adb backup mechanism, may require on-screen approval, and can be blocked by a broken screen. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and adds a clearly labeled important caveat. The extra clarification that the on-screen prompt is Android's own mechanism is slightly defensive but still relevant and not wasteful.

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?

The description covers preconditions and interaction, but omits parameter guidance, default behavior for include_system, and any mention of overwrite behavior or output. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema parameter descriptions, this leaves important gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain local_path, serial, or include_system. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning solely from names, which is insufficient given the low coverage and required local_path parameter.

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 tool creates a full ADB backup from the device into an .ab file on the computer, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_file or list_apps, even without naming an alternative.

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 gives concrete preconditions: ADB debugging must already be enabled on the device, and the phone screen may prompt for confirmation or a password. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but it clearly explains when the tool can succeed and what limitations apply.

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