adb_input_fling

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 mentions creating scroll momentum and high velocity, which are key behaviors. However, it does not address required conditions (e.g., screen on, unlocked) or potential side effects like triggering animations. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose, key differentiation (vs swipe), and usage scenarios without any filler. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the concept of a fling, its typical use, and the role of duration. For a simple gesture tool, this is nearly complete. Minor omission: it could note that the gesture simulates a touch swipe, but that is implied.

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 all parameters. The description adds context about duration affecting velocity but does not meaningfully extend beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly defines the tool as performing a high-velocity fling gesture, contrasting it with swipe and listing specific use cases like fast-scrolling and dismissing notifications. Verb and resource are explicit.

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 compares fling to swipe by noting shorter duration for velocity, and lists concrete scenarios (fast-scrolling lists, dismiss notifications, velocity-sensitive behaviors). It provides clear context but stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it.

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