list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'list' combined with zero parameters reasonably implies a safe read. However it says nothing about behavior if no devices are connected, whether it starts/relies on an ADB server, or what the status field can contain, so behavioral disclosure is only minimal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key output attribute (device status) are both stated up front.

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 trivial, zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and what is returned. It leaves the possible status values unspecified, but with no output schema and no parameters this is a minor gap.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('列出...安卓设备' / list Android devices) and adds the qualifier that they are ADB-connected and that status is included. This distinguishes it naturally from all siblings (list_packages, pull_apk, frida_*, smali_*), none of which enumerate devices, though it does not explicitly call out that contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before pull_apk/static_unpack/frida_prepare, but the description states no when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g. ADB server running), or alternatives. No explicit routing guidance is provided.

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