adb_file_move

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: destructive nature on system paths, depth protection, symlink resolution, and performance implications of cross-filesystem moves. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error conditions, which limits full transparency.

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 concise with four sentences, each providing valuable information. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's core function.

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?

The description covers behavioral aspects but lacks details about return values, success/failure indications, and whether overwriting occurs. Since there is no output schema, the description should offer more completeness to fully inform an agent.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or relationships between parameters. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Move or rename a file/directory on the device' and distinguishes itself from siblings like adb_file_copy by mentioning destructive behavior and cross-filesystem moves, making its purpose specific and identifiable.

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 on when to use this tool (e.g., for moving/renaming) and includes important constraints like depth protection and cross-filesystem slowness. However, it lacks explicit comparison to adb_file_copy or adb_rm, leaving some ambiguity about optimal choice.

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