adb_shannon_session

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the handshake is 'benign', that ATI is only sent optionally and only after success, and that no configuration changes are made. It omits what happens on a failed handshake, whether root is required for the port scan, and whether partial results are returned when only some checks pass.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the optional behavior, then the safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 preflight/diagnostic tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what is deliberately not changed. The main gap is the absence of any statement about the shape of the result (per-check pass/fail, discovered port list) or failure semantics, which an agent would need to interpret the outcome.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured form and the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the includeIdentity/ATI behavior ('Optionally sends ATI for identification after a successful handshake') and hints at the port override via 'known AT ports', but adds no new constraints or format details beyond 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 names a specific verb ('Preflight') and a specific resource ('Samsung Shannon/Exynos modem session'), then enumerates exactly what gets checked: chipset, root, known AT ports, and an AT handshake. That is far more precise than the generic sibling tools (adb_at_probe, adb_at_detect, adb_firmware_probe), though it never explicitly names those siblings to draw the boundary.

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 word 'Preflight' implies this runs before other modem work, and 'Makes no modem configuration changes' implies a safe diagnostic role. However, the description never states when an agent should pick this over adb_at_probe, adb_at_detect, or adb_firmware_probe, nor what conditions make it inappropriate (e.g., non-Samsung hardware).

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