adb_carrier_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only ('dump'), which is the primary behavioral trait. However, it does not detail the output format, potential permissions required, or any side effects. The basic read nature is conveyed, but more depth would improve transparency.

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: two short sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary action, and the second lists practical use cases. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use cases. It could be slightly more specific (e.g., what exactly is dumped for the default device), but it provides enough context for an agent to decide to use it for carrier configuration tasks. The lack of output schema is compensated by the clear purpose.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'device', described as 'Device serial'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is added by the description for parameters.

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 verb 'dump' and the resource 'carrier configuration values', and immediately follows with specific use cases: verifying carrier settings, detecting anomalies, and inspecting APN configurations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on carrier configuration, which is unique among the listed adb 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 implies usage when dealing with carrier settings by listing concrete use cases like verification and anomaly detection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the sibling list suggests many other diagnostic tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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