诊断移动端连接

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the tool invokes ADB, go-ios, and official HDC, and that targeting a single device is optional. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (running platform-specific diagnostics) and then states the optional targeting behavior. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by mentioning the expected output or how targetId relates to mobile_list_targets, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema provides no description for targetId, so the description must compensate. '可指定单台设备' clarifies that targetId is optional and selects a single device, but it does not explain where valid IDs come from or what happens if the parameter is omitted. This is partial but useful compensation.

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 the verb '运行' (run) and the specific resource: platform-specific connection diagnostics using ADB, go-ios, and official HDC. It also mentions the optional single-device target, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mobile_list_targets, mobile_capture, and mobile_get_logs.

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 '连接诊断' implies the tool is for diagnosing mobile connection issues, and the mention of specific platform tooling gives context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with alternatives like mobile_list_targets or mobile_get_logs.

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