adb_sensor_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies a read operation with no destructive side effects, notes device-dependent availability, and states 'No root required.' It could be more detailed about output format but is adequately transparent for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the main action, the second explains the mechanics, and the third adds condition and requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description explains the return includes last-known readings and timestamps. It covers key constraints (device-dependent, no root). However, it omits output format details (e.g., JSON structure) and potential performance considerations, making it slightly incomplete.

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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. It provides context about timestamps and availability but does not enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what is already documented 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 clearly states the tool reads current hardware sensor values, enumerates all available sensors via sensorservice, and returns last-known readings with timestamps. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like adb_iio_read (which targets industrial I/O sensors) and adb_gps_firmware (firmware-level).

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 for reading standard sensors but does not explicitly advise when to use alternatives or exclude scenarios. It mentions 'No root required' as a precondition but lacks comparative guidance against similar tools like adb_iio_read or adb_thermal_snapshot.

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