Run a sequence of devilge tools in one round trip

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

The description discloses key behaviors: stops on first error, capped at 20 actions, input validation before each step, concatenated output with step labels, and error reporting with isError=true. Annotations (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) are consistent, and description adds substantial context beyond them.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a bulleted rules list, and a returns line. No filler; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all behavioral aspects (error handling, output format, constraints) and provides usage context, leaving no significant gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra constraints not in schema: cannot include destructive tools (devilge_clear_app_data, devilge_install_apk), cannot call itself, and mentions input validation. These add meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 tool executes a sequence of devilge tools sequentially in a single MCP call, and gives a concrete example (tap → wait_for_idle → take_screenshot) to illustrate its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by being a batch/sequencing tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use (to chain predictable steps, reducing overhead and permission prompts) and when not to use (destructive tools must be invoked directly). It also states it cannot call itself, providing clear usage boundaries.

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