native_run_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Android & iOS support' but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether it lists physical devices only, emulators/simulators, output format, permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return values, error conditions, and how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool in a context with many device-related alternatives, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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 description does not mention the 'platform' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone provides minimal context (only enum values and default). However, since there is only one optional parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond what's inferred from the tool name and schema, resulting in an average score.

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 action ('List connected devices') and the technology scope ('using native-run (Android & iOS support)'), which distinguishes it from generic device listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'android_list_devices' or 'flutter_list_devices', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 alternatives such as 'android_list_devices' or 'flutter_list_devices', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to choose it.

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