Inspect Android capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that it probes *actual* (live-observed rather than declared) capabilities, but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether probing has side effects on the device.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the trailing capability list reads as keywords rather than explanatory prose. It is efficiently sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the probes cover a low-complexity read. Still, the description leaves the refresh flag's effect and the intended workflow position (when to re-probe) unspecified, which leaves a gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 50%: serial is well documented in the schema, but 'refresh' (default false) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions the refresh parameter or what cache/probe semantics it toggles, despite 'actual' hinting that a cached-vs-live distinction exists.

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?

Specific verb ('Probe') plus a well-scoped resource (device ADB/input/command/build/backend capabilities), which separates it from mobile_app_inspect's app-level scope. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from mobile_server_info or mobile_devices_list, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this should be run before input/app operations, how often, or why the caller would pick this over mobile_devices_list or mobile_server_info. 'Probe the selected device's actual... capabilities' implies a diagnostic posture but leaves the trigger condition to inference.

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