adb_at_cross_validate

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it sends specific read-only AT commands and compares results against getprop values. It mentions auto-detection of the modem port and the root requirement. No contradictions observed.

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 three sentences: purpose, use cases, and detailed commands/properties. It is concise and well-structured, with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 complexity of cross-validation and the lack of an output schema, the description provides solid coverage but lacks explicit details about the output format. It implies discrepancies are highlighted but does not describe the exact return structure.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context: it states the port parameter can be auto-detected, timeout is per command, and it lists the commands and properties used. This goes beyond the schema definitions to clarify the tool's operation.

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 tool's purpose: cross-validate baseband firmware by comparing AT command responses with Android system properties. It specifies the exact AT commands (ATI, AT+CGMR, AT+CGMM) and properties (gsm.version.baseband, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like adb_at_detect or adb_firmware_diff.

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 explains when to use the tool: to detect firmware tampering, incomplete OTA updates, or property spoofing. It also notes the requirement for root. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and actionable.

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