adb_multi_test

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions parallel execution and comparison, but does not disclose potential destructiveness of custom commands, error handling, or rate limits. Lacks warnings about modifying device state.

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 concise, one paragraph with a clear structure: main purpose, then profiles, then custom commands. No unnecessary words, front-loads the key action.

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?

Covers the core workflow and parameters, but missing output format (how results are returned) and prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity). With 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail on expected output would improve completeness.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'profile' enum by listing what each profile checks (e.g., firmware, security). This extra detail aids agent understanding beyond the schema enum.

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 comparative test workflow across all connected devices, listing specific profiles and custom commands. It distinguishes itself from siblings like adb_multi_install or adb_shell by focusing on parallel comparison and reporting matches/differences.

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 for comparing device diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like adb_shell or adb_firmware_diff. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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