adb_network_connections

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (similar to netstat), but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., device connection, shell permissions) or output characteristics (e.g., continuous output, refresh rate). This is 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 extremely concise: one clear sentence followed by a helpful analogy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. No fluff.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema). The description covers the main purpose and analogy well. However, it could improve by hinting at the output format (e.g., list of connections) to set expectations. Still, it is largely complete for a simple listing 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains them. The description hints at TCP/UDP filtering via the protocol parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool shows active network connections, specifies TCP/UDP, and uses the familiar analogy of netstat. It lists what it shows (established connections, listening ports, connection states), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use for network diagnostics by comparing to netstat, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like adb_network_scan or adb_network. No exclusion criteria or context for alternatives is provided.

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