adb_iio_read

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

Discloses root requirement, device discovery, real-time reading, and platform-specific differences. Without annotations, the description effectively communicates the read-only nature and scope, though it could be more explicit about side effects.

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?

Efficiently packed information in 3-4 sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Adequately describes behavior and platform differences given the tool's simplicity. No output schema, but the nature of returned data is explained. Missing details like error cases or performance characteristics.

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 descriptions for both parameters (listOnly and device). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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, describes device discovery and value reading, and differentiates between platform-specific behaviors (Tensor/Exynos vs others). The description is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools.

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?

Indirectly implies usage when sensor HAL is insufficient for power data on Tensor/Exynos, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives.

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