adb_ci_device_ready

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions returns structured pass/fail results but does not state if it is read-only or has side effects. The list of checks adds some transparency but lacks explicit safety profile.

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?

Concise single sentence with a list of checks. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is checked and the result format. Lacks details on result interpretation but sufficient for its role.

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% with description for the device parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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?

Description clearly states it's a comprehensive CI readiness check with specific verifications (device online, booted, package manager ready, screen unlocked, network available). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_ci_wait_boot which is more specific.

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?

Implied usage as a readiness check but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools.

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