adb_file_touch

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: FAT32 timestamp resolution (2-second) and tmpfs volatility. It also hints at the need for root access via the protected paths mention. However, it does not discuss return values, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 three sentences that front-load the core action and modes. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines purpose, second details modes, third provides filesystem context. No unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, modes, and key behavioral aspects (filesystem quirks). It lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file existence for update), and precise timestamp behavior for new files, but is adequate for typical use.

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%, and the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema (e.g., 'Omit to use current time' for timestamp). It does not elaborate on path format, device selection, or root usage nuances beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an empty file or update timestamps' and distinguishes three modes (create, update, set explicit timestamp). It differentiates from sibling file tools by focusing on timestamps and creation rather than content writing or permissions.

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 outlines three modes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_file_write (which creates files with content) or other file manipulation tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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