repair_phone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the phone re-enables its own service, works over any network including cellular, and requires no cable or human touch. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but the core operational behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Three sentences, with the core action and condition front-loaded. The background about Android revocation and the network/cable detail are relevant and not wasted. It could have been slightly tighter, but the length is reasonable and each sentence adds needed context.

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 covers what, why, and when, and the output schema presumably documents return values. However, it leaves the device parameter unexplained and does not mention how the agent should select a device or whether prior discovery via list_devices is expected. That is a meaningful gap for successful invocation.

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 input schema has one string parameter 'device' with an empty default and 0% description coverage. The tool description never mentions this parameter, so the agent gets no guidance on whether it is required, what formats are acceptable, or how to obtain a valid device identifier. The name itself hints at the device selector, but that is minimal compensation.

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 and resource: 'Put the phone's accessibility service back' and specifies the trigger ('when it has been switched off'). It clearly distinguishes itself from all the interaction/device-management siblings by naming the accessibility-service repair action.

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 gives a clear condition for use: Android revoked the accessibility service and it needs reinstating. It also explains that remote repair works over any network with no physical access, which helps an agent understand when this is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no obvious alternative exists among the siblings.

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