adb_file_fsinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes output but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. While 'report' implies read-only, it could be more explicit about safety and permissions.

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 a single sentence listing many attributes followed by a second sentence highlighting importance. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). It front-loads the key purpose.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively lists the filesystem properties returned (type, mount point, capacity, etc.), providing a good understanding of what the tool provides. It lacks details on return format or how to interpret values, but covers the essentials.

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 explains the parameters (path, root, device). The description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 it reports filesystem details for any path, listing specific attributes like mount point, capacity, read-only status, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adb_file_stat by focusing on filesystem-level info rather than file-level metadata.

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 clear context by calling it 'essential for understanding what operations are possible before attempting them,' implying use before file operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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