get_device_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It comprehensively describes the output structure and hints at read-only behavior (status retrieval). However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or mention any rate limits or authentication needs. Still, it is above average in transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose and a detailed list of return categories. While somewhat lengthy, each part earns its place by providing meaningful information. Minor room for more concise phrasing.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates all returned fields and provides usage context (e.g., relevance of run_mode). This is complete for a status-reading tool and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool provides.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline for high coverage is 3. The description adds no parameter info because there are none, which is acceptable but does not provide additional semantic 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves complete device running status for Android devices. It lists all categories returned, distinguishing it from siblings like connect_device or observe_device which have different purposes.

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?

Explicitly recommends calling this tool before generating scripts, explaining why: to check run_mode for API selection, permissions for authorization, and runtime to avoid conflicts. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool.

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