adb_batch_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sequential execution and optional delay between actions. It also lists all action types. It does not mention error behavior (handled by parameter), but overall is transparent about core behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, benefit, behavior, and list of types. No fluff, every word adds value. Very concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, behavior, and types. It lacks return value details, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Generally complete and informative.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining the sequential nature and delay, but does not elaborate on argument formats beyond the schema. Adequate but not enhanced.

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 executes multiple input actions in a single call, reducing ADB round-trips. It explicitly lists supported action types and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform individual actions, making purpose 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?

The description explains the benefit of reducing round-trips for multi-step UI interactions, implying when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for single actions) or direct alternatives among the many sibling tools. Still provides helpful context.

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