adb_ci_run_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool runs tests and returns results, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., does it modify device state?), dependencies (e.g., does it require the APK to be installed?), error handling, or the exact format of the structured output. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose. It front-loads the action ('Run Android instrumented tests') and includes key details about the method and output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to CI, the installation step, or the exact structure of the return value. An agent may lack sufficient information to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. As per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate since the tool description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Run', the resource 'Android instrumented tests (androidTest)', and the method 'am instrument'. It also mentions capturing results and returning structured pass/fail output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that may also run tests, such as adb_multi_test or adb_permission_audit, and the CI context implied by the name is not elaborated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as device readiness or APK installation. There is no explicit when-not or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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