list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses what the command returns (serial numbers, connection status, and device details). The read-only nature is evident from the verb 'List,' and no side effects or special behaviors are hidden.

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 action and resource, then adds enumerative detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is fully complete. It specifies the scope (all connected), the item type (devices and emulators), and the included fields. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates what the result will contain.

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, so the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter detail to add beyond the schema, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'all connected Android devices and emulators.' It further specifies the included details (serial numbers, connection status, product, model, device, transport), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the many device-action siblings like reboot_device or get_device_state.

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 clearly implies its use as an enumeration tool, providing clear context that it lists all connected devices. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident, and the lack of exclusions is acceptable for a simple listing tool.

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