adb_network_scan

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

The description explains the scanning behavior (probes common ports, uses ARP table, optional IP range) but does not disclose potential side effects like network traffic or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it is adequate but not detailed.

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 two clear sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers the key aspects of the tool's functionality.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete enough overview of the tool's purpose, inputs, and typical usage flow. It could mention the output format or error handling, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'from the ARP table' and 'common ADB ports', but these are already implied in the schema descriptions. This adds marginal value, resulting in a baseline 3.

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 it scans the local network for Android devices with ADB over WiFi/TCP, probes common ports, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adb_connect by mentioning discovered devices can be connected with that tool.

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 explicitly states that discovered devices can be connected with adb_connect, implying when to use this tool (to find devices) and what to do next. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or give alternatives for known IPs.

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