adb_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose any potential permissions needed, expected response format, or performance characteristics. For a straightforward getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It is concise and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it omits details that could be included without adding length (e.g., return structure).

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by detailing what information is returned. The description only lists categories (WiFi, cellular, active connections) but does not clarify the format, structure, or scope (e.g., current state vs historical). This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's output.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'device' is described as 'Device serial'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter; it lists types of info (WiFi, cellular, active connections) but does not relate them to the parameter. Baseline 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 states 'Get network connectivity info including WiFi, cellular, and active connections', providing a specific verb and resource. It broadly distinguishes itself from networking siblings like adb_network_connections (which likely focuses on listing connections) by emphasizing a summary of connectivity state, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Given the presence of multiple networking siblings (adb_network_scan, adb_network_device_ip, etc.), the lack of contextual cues or when-not-to-use instructions is a significant gap.

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