adb_get_connected_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not clarify what 'connected' means (e.g., excludes offline/unauthorized states), whether an adb server must be running, or what the return format is. This is a minimal transparency gap for a simple getter.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, simple getter.

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 description is adequate for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, but it lacks context about the sibling adb_list_devices tool and does not mention the expected return value (e.g., list of device IDs). Since this is a simple read operation, the gap is moderate, not severe.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). No additional parameter explanation is needed in the description, and the baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 'Get only connected ADB devices' uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('connected ADB devices') with a clear scoping modifier ('only connected'). This distinguishes it from a generic device listing tool like adb_list_devices, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling adb_list_devices. It does not state whether to use this for only connected devices and the other for all devices, leaving the decision to the agent without explicit context.

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