device_list

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 the output fields (serial, status) and connection methods (USB or adb connect wifi). It does not mention edge cases like no devices connected or failure behavior, but for a simple read-only list operation the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences in Hungarian front-load the main purpose, then detail the output fields, and finally provide the cross-tool usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how the result connects to sibling tool usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a useful note about how other tools use the 'serial' parameter, which indirectly clarifies the data this tool returns. There are no parameter ambiguities to resolve.

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 it lists connected Android devices and their serial numbers and status (device/unauthorized/offline), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like device_info, though the resource and verb make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the key usage context: when multiple devices exist, other tools' 'serial' parameter is used to choose which device to operate on. This implies device_list is the way to discover available serials, but it does not explicitly state 'use this tool before other tools' or list alternatives.

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