adb_carrier_config

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Merely states 'dump' implying read-only, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., root), safety, or side effects. Does not explain return behavior or error conditions.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'dump' and immediately provides purpose and use cases.

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?

Tool has one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. Description is adequate but lacks details on output format, possible errors, or prerequisites. Could be more complete for a first-time user.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single 'device' parameter described as 'Device serial'. Description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool dumps carrier configuration values, with specific use cases like verifying carrier settings and inspecting APN configurations. Distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which focus on carrier config.

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?

Only vaguely suggests usefulness for verification and anomaly detection. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. not, no alternatives mentioned, and no when-to-avoid context.

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