adb_at_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses root requirement and that it returns the first responding node, which is good. However, it does not detail failure modes or what happens if no node responds, but for a simple tool this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the main action ('Auto-detect the modem AT command device node') and adds necessary details without waste. Every sentence is informative.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: detection purpose, chipset family identification, probing behavior, root requirement, and return value. It could mention error handling, but overall it is complete.

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?

There is only one parameter 'device' with schema description 'Device serial'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the same information. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.

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: auto-detect the modem AT command device node, identify chipset family, probe known paths, and return the first responding node. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adb_at_probe and adb_at_send by focusing on detection rather than sending commands.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires root' and the return behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's a preliminary step before using adb_at_send, but does not state exclusions or avoidances.

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