adb_devices

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: workspace has no effect on results, an empty list means nothing is connected, and adb must be on PATH. The read-only claim largely restates readOnlyHint=true, so it is not purely additive, but the environment and scoping disclosures are valuable.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the usage guidance, then the return shape and prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ devices: [{ serial, state, extra }] }) and explains the state enum values and extra field, filling exactly the gaps the structured fields leave.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating the workspace parameter does not affect the result, which the schema description alone does not clearly convey.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Android devices and emulators visible to adb), and clearly distinguishes itself from the mutating/querying siblings like adb_shell and adb_install. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 says to 'Call this first to confirm a device is connected' and that its output feeds the deviceSerial parameter of other adb_* and frida_* tools. It even preempts a likely misuse by noting the workspace parameter has no effect.

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