adb_file_checksum

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

The description notes that it is a read-only operation and reports file size alongside the hash, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as error handling for missing files, permission requirements, or performance considerations. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 4 parameters (fully described in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output (file size + hash). It does not mention response structure or edge cases, but for a straightforward hash computation, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no new insight beyond what is in the schema, such as explaining algorithmic differences or the use of root. It receives a baseline score of 3 as per guidelines.

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 'Compute SHA-256 hash of a file on the device' with specific use cases like firmware integrity verification, tamper detection, and file comparison. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on hashing, which is unique among the listed file-related tools.

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 context for when to use the tool (e.g., for integrity checks and comparisons), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks. It assumes the agent understands the distinct purpose compared to siblings like adb_file_stat.

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