adb_ota_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'compares' and 'detects' changes, suggesting a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or any side effects. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., a saved fingerprint must exist). Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 succinct sentences effectively front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics well. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., a diff or list of changes), which an agent might need to interpret results. Slightly incomplete but acceptable for a straightforward 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that omitting 'fingerprintPath' compares against the most recent fingerprint for the device, providing contextual usage guidance not in the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('system state against a saved fingerprint') and the goal ('detects OTA updates'). It lists the specific attributes checked (build ID, security patch, etc.), which distinguishes it from related tools like adb_ota_fingerprint that save fingerprints.

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 when an OTA check is needed after saving a fingerprint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adb_ota_fingerprint for saving, adb_ota_history for history). No when-not or prerequisite guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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