adb_check

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks availability and gets the version, but it does not disclose whether it starts an ADB server, requires a connected device, or has any side effects. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Check') and the resource ('ADB') and efficiently conveys the scope, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple, but the description is minimal. With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'get version' returns (e.g., a version string) and what 'available' means. It lacks return-value details or edge-case behavior, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, and this tool fits that case.

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's function: checking ADB availability and retrieving its version. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('ADB'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like adb_get_connected_devices or adb_list_devices, which focus on device listing rather than environment verification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other ADB-related tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer that it is a preliminary check, but the description leaves this implicit.

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