list_devices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating not only that it lists devices but also what state information it reports (online status, uiautomator2 session establishment). The term 'list' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not explicitly mention side effects such as starting the ADB server, but for a list operation this is a minor omission.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all Android devices attached via ADB') and then adds specific output details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 simple, parameterless listing tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what information the result will contain. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return-value structure, and no dependencies, authentication, or setup prerequisites are needed for a device enumeration operation.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related details. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('list'), identifies a clear resource ('all Android devices attached via ADB'), and goes beyond a bare resource by naming the exact information returned (online state, uiautomator2 session status). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect_device or get_device_info.

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 implies a use case: enumerating connected Android devices to serve as a discovery step before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_device_info (which likely targets a single device) or get_server_status (which checks ADB server health). There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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