push_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the underlying `adb push` mechanism but omits important side effects for a write operation, such as whether existing remote files are overwritten, whether directories are created implicitly, or what permissions are required.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the core technical alias (`adb push`) front-loaded. It earns its place, though its brevity leaves room for more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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 mutating file-transfer tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, this is insufficient for safe invocation. It does not mention serial selection, overwrite behavior, failure modes, or prerequisites, and although an output schema exists, the operational context is still too thin.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds the high-level local-to-remote direction, which clarifies `local_path` and `remote_path`, but it says nothing about the optional `serial` parameter, path formatting, or expected input formats beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('feltoltese' – upload), a resource (file from the computer to the device), and explicitly maps to `adb push`. This unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like `pull_file` without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'from the computer to the device' clearly implies the upload direction, which helps differentiate it from `pull_file`. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or when alternatives such as `install_apk` or `make_dir` would be more appropriate.

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