device_infoFetches Android device model, manufacturer, OS version, and screen size to identify the target phone before automating actions or checking UI compatibility.
Model, manufacturer, Android version, and screen size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor how the values are returned (single object? string?), leaving the safety and response profile implicit.
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?
It is a single tight fragment with zero filler and the content is front-loaded. Its brevity, however, comes from under-specification rather than economy of expression.
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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the field list does useful work in anticipating the return values. It is still incomplete regarding the action verb and the shape/format of the returned data.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 enumerates the exact fields returned (model, manufacturer, Android version, screen size), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the action (retrieve device metadata) must be inferred. It does distinguish it implicitly from siblings like screenshot and ui_dump.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_devices or current_app, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer that this is the hardware/OS metadata lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.