adb_ci_device_ready

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It lists what is verified but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies device state) or required permissions. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, bullet-list format in prose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose and scope.

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 single parameter and no output schema, description fully explains what the tool does and what results to expect (structured pass/fail). No gaps for intended use.

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?

Only one parameter (device) with schema coverage 100%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Device serial' description. No enhancement needed.

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 as a comprehensive CI readiness check, listing specific aspects verified (device online, booted, package manager ready, screen unlocked, network available). It distinguishes from siblings like adb_ci_wait_boot or adb_health_check by its broader scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among sibling tools like adb_ci_wait_boot and adb_ci_run_tests, the description does not specify why one would choose this check over others.

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