adb_firmware_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it implies a read-only operation by stating 'show', it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data source dependencies. The description is insufficiently transparent 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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add relevant detail. Every word is necessary and no redundant information is included.

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 could explain return value structure but does not. It mentions 'parsed component diffs' without elaboration. However, for a one-parameter tool, the description is minimally complete, lacking only output details.

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% with the device parameter well described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that the tool filters to a device's fingerprints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows firmware version progression across all saved OTA fingerprints for a device, tracking specific components like baseband, bootloader, kernel, security patch, and build ID changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_firmware_diff and adb_firmware_probe.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over similar tools like adb_ota_history or adb_firmware_diff.

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