adb_list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. 'Currently knows about' usefully implies the adb server's cached view rather than an active network sweep, but it says nothing about whether offline/unauthorized devices are included, whether the call can start the adb server, or what the response contains — gaps that matter for a discovery tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('currently knows about') is attached directly to the resource rather than buried later.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is close to sufficient, but because there is no output schema the description could reasonably indicate what comes back (serials, connection states) so an agent knows what to do with the result. The core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain or omit. Nothing is misdescribed.

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 adb knows about'), which is enough to tell it apart from action siblings like adb_connect, adb_scan, or adb_state. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternative (e.g., adb_state, which reports per-device state), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the discovery step before adb_connect/adb_shell, but the description never says when to prefer it over adb_state or adb_scan, nor any precondition such as the adb server being reachable. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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