adb_iio_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the tool reads data, discovers all IIO devices, and requires root. Notes device-specific behavior (power monitors vs. raw sensors). Does not mention rate limits or potential side effects, but as a read operation this is acceptable.

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 paragraph of three sentences, each conveying essential information: purpose, device-specific behavior, and root requirement. No redundant or filler content.

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 adequately hints at output (power monitors on Tensor/Exynos, raw sensors on others) and mentions root requirement. Could specify that output format varies, but overall provides sufficient context for a read tool.

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 both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it focuses on output context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters adequately.

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?

Clearly states it reads raw hardware data from Linux IIO subsystem, discovers devices, and reads values. Differentiates from Android sensor HAL and mentions specific use on Tensor/Exynos devices for power monitors. 'Root required' is a key requirement.

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?

Provides context on when to use: on Tensor/Exynos for per-rail power data not available via sensor HAL, and on other devices for raw sensor data. Implies root requirement as a precondition. Does not explicitly list alternatives but the sibling list includes adb_sensor_read which covers sensor HAL, aiding differentiation.

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