adb_app_route_context

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the operation is read-only and non-mutating plus the cross-domain data it inspects. It omits operationally relevant traits: whether elevated privileges are required, how the preflight behaves on unsupported Android versions, and roughly what the result contains.

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?

Two sentences, the scope and correlated resources are front-loaded, and the read-only guarantee closes it out. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 diagnostic tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers what it inspects and that it is safe, but leaves the agent guessing on prerequisites (root, supported API levels) and on the shape of the returned routing data. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 real meaning by framing packageName as the pivot for UID correlation and by hinting that VPN/default-network state is part of the correlated output, matching the includeConnectivitySummary toggle. It still doesn't clarify the device parameter's selection behavior when multiple devices are attached.

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 ('Show the effective Android routing context') with an explicit scope ('for one installed app') and enumerates the exact data correlated: UID, ip rules, route tables, network policy, VPN, default-network state. This is clearly distinguishable from broad siblings like adb_network or adb_network_connections without opening their schemas.

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 clause 'Read-only; does not alter routes or app policy' functions as a mild exclusion, telling the agent this isn't for changing policy. However, it names no alternative tools, no prerequisites (root vs non-root, device selection), and no failure conditions such as an uninstalled package, so usage is only implied.

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