adb_list_forwardings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action as "List", which implies a read-only operation, and the target is specific. However, it does not disclose potential requirements (e.g., adb server, connected device) or return format, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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. There is no wasted wording or filler, earning the maximum score 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and a clear action, the description is mostly complete. It adequately conveys that the tool lists active forwardings. It omits details like prerequisites or output format, but given the simplicity and sibling context, this is a minor gap.

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 there is nothing to describe. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("active ADB port forwardings"), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_forward_port (creates), adb_remove_forwarding (removes), and adb_list_devices (lists devices, not forwardings).

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 when to use this tool: to view current port forwardings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling set makes the context obvious. For a simple list operation, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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