adb_reverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the direction of forwarding and a typical use case, but does not mention side effects (e.g., temporary nature, dependency on device connection) or constraints. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, both essential and front-loaded. No redundant words, effectively communicating purpose and usage in minimal space.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and use case adequately. It could mention that the forwarding is live and can be removed, but it is sufficient for most agents.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description reinforces the direction (device→host) but adds minimal extra value beyond the schema. It does not provide examples or format details.

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 'Reverse-forward a device port to a port on the host (device → host)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'adb_forward' (host→device) and 'adb_reverse_remove' by specifying direction and use case.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use for letting device apps reach services on your machine.' It implicitly differentiates from alternatives, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with other sibling tools like 'adb_forward'.

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