adb_health_check

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 lists what is validated, suggesting a read-only diagnostic, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies device state or requires specific permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 two sentences: first stating the main action, second listing what is validated. It is front-loaded and concise with 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 the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and scope well. However, it lacks any description of the output or return value, which would help the agent understand what to expect from the health check.

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?

The parameter 'device' is described in the schema with 'Device serial to check (optional)'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, 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 runs a comprehensive health check of the ADB toolchain and lists specific areas validated (ADB binary, server, device connection, authorization, root access). This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like adb_device_info or adb_connect.

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 implies usage when needing to verify the ADB setup, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adb_devices, adb_connect). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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