appium_mobile_device_control

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what the schema already provides (platform-specific actions). It does not disclose side effects like disrupting the app under test or requiring an active session. Since annotations cover the mutation aspect and the schema covers platform limitations, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds minimal but non-contradictory context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and points to the key parameter. It is concise, avoids repetition, and contains no filler.

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 three parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and directs the agent to the action parameter. It does not mention preconditions like device availability or potential interference with the test, but these are not strictly required for correct invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only says 'Use the action parameter to choose what to do,' which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's detailed enum and per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 resource (device behavior) and lists specific actions: lock/unlock the screen, shake, open notifications. This is distinct from sibling tools like appium_gesture (screen gestures) or appium_orientation (screen rotation), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage: if you need to perform these device-level actions, use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use appium_gesture for screen-level interactions' or platform-specific exclusions (though the schema does note iOS-only for shake and Android-only for open_notifications). No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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