execute_raw_adb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful safety trait (array-based args prevent shell injection on the host), but it does not mention potential side effects, output handling, or any prerequisites like device connectivity. This is only partial disclosure for a tool that can run arbitrary commands.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, followed by a relevant safety note. Every word contributes to understanding, earning a top score.

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?

The tool is a raw ADB command executor with no output schema and no annotations. The description lacks any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., stdout/stderr) and provides no warning about the destructive potential of arbitrary ADB commands. This is a significant gap for such a powerful tool, making the description incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear example for args and serial description. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an arbitrary ADB command using raw command-line arguments. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like reboot_device or forward_port, and the mention of 'host machine' helps differentiate from execute_shell_command.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., forward_port, install_app). It only states what the tool does without any 'use this when...' context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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